##### [updated 27 July 1999]

##### U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science1110 Vermont Avenue, NW - Suite 820Washington, DC  20005-3522

**Proceedings of theLibrary and Information Services Policy Forum*Changes in Library and Information Services: 1996-2001*May 15-16, 1995Washington, DCFunded by theNational Center for Education Statisticsand Co-sponsored by theU.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Sciencewith the Cooperation of theOffice of Library Programsand theNational Institute on Postsecondary Education, Libraries, and Lifelong Learning**

----

***The views, opinions, and recommendations expressed in thisReport do not necessarily reflect the official position of theNational Center for Education Statistics,  the Office of LibraryPrograms and the National Institute on Postsecondary Education,Libraries, and Lifelong Learning of the U.S. Department of Education,or the U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science***
**The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirementsof American National Standard for Information Sciences -- Permanenceof Paper for Printed Library Materials.**Library and Information Services Policy ForumChanges in Library and Information Services: 1996-2001
CONTENTSSummary Highlights                                                       General Session                                                          Introduction to Forum by Co-Chairs- Hon. Emerson J. Elliott, Commissioner                                 National Center for Education Statistics                                  Hon. Jeanne Hurley Simon, Chairperson                                    U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science
IntroductionsForecasts for Next Five Years, 1996-2001*Economic*- Gail Makinen, Specialist, Economic Policy,                                 Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress  Social    -  P. Royal Shipp, Acting Chief, Education and Public Welfare Division, Congressional Research Service,                Library of Congress  Technology      - Jane Bortnick Griffith, Specialist, Science and Technology, Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress  General Discussion  Luncheon Speaker Introduction by Paul Planchon, Associate Commissioner, National Center for Education Statistics U.S. Department of Education" Changes in Education:  1996-2001"         Ramsay Selden, Director, State Education Assessment Center,                Council of Chief State School Officers                                                                            Special Francis Keppel Award Presented to Emerson J. Elliott
General Information, Focus Groups Summary Reports on Focus Group Sessions- National Level Changes    - Robert Willard (Moderator), Member U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science  Carrol Kindel (Recorder), Chief, Library Statistics Unit,                National Center for Education Statistics                                  State and Library System Changes
Joseph Shubert (Moderator), State Librarian and Assistant Commissioner,  New York State Library
- Mary Treacy (Recorder), American Library Association                       *Public Library Changes*- Eleanor Jo Rodger (Moderator),President                                   Urban Libraries Council                                                   Keith Curry Lance (Recorder), Director,  Library Research Service, Colorado Department of Education                               School Library Media Center Changes
Betty Marcoux  (Moderator), Head Librarian Rincon High School Library                                              
- Ann Weeks (Recorder), Executive Director                                   American Association of School Librarians/                                Young  Adult Library Services,                                            American Library Association                                              Academic Library Changes
Neal Kaske (Moderator), Library Programs, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education                                             
- Mary Jo Lynch (Recorder), Director, Office for Research                    and Statistics, American Library Association                              General Session  Closing  Remarks Jeanne Hurley Simon, NCLIS Chairperson Appendices                                                     Supplemental Focus Group Reports:                               Appendix 1 National Level                   Appendix 2 State and Library Systems                                     Appendix 3 Public Libraries                                              Appendix 4 School Library Media Centers                                  Appendix 5 Academic Libraries                                           Agenda, 1995 Library and Information Services Policy Forum
List of Participants                                                  **Summary Highlights**
 The third annual Library and Information Services Policy Forum,jointly sponsored by the National Center for Education Statistics(NCES), the Office of Library Programs (LP), the National Instituteon Postsecondary Education, Libraries, and Lifelong Learning (NIPELLL)of the U.S. Department of Education, and the U.S. National Commissionon Libraries and Information Science (NCLIS) was held in Washington,DC, on May 15 and 16, 1995.  In addition to federal officialsfrom the 
U.S. Department of Education, the Library of Congress, the Departmentof Commerce, NCES, and NCLIS, the Forum involved library administrators,officers of library and information service associations, governmentofficials, educators, researchers, and statisticians. Dr. DavidP. Boesel, Acting Director, National Institute on PostsecondaryEducation, Libraries, and Lifelong Learning served as the ForumModerator.  
 This year's Forum focused on *Changes in Library and InformationServices:  1996-2001,* and included**forecasts for thenext five years regarding**economic, social, and technologicalchanges, and changes in education.
***Economic*** -- Gail Makinen (Congressional ResearchService, Library of Congress).  If a recession occurs, it shouldbe short and shallow because interest and inflation rates arealready low.  The Federal Reserve will try to engineer a softlanding.  Possible pitfalls are foreign economics, supply shocks,and the behavior of the American public in general, e.g., influenceson spending of optimism or pessimism.
***Social*** -- P. Royal Shipp (Congressional ResearchService, Library of Congress).  There are not many social forecasts;most forecasts come about with respect to legislation.  The followingfactors make optimism difficult:  sense of moral decline, ageof great uncertainty, globalization of economy, lack of commonpurpose, aging of population.
***Technological*** -- Jane Bortnick Griffith (CongressionalResearch Service, Library of Congress).  Technology will continueto develop at a very rapid pace and computing power will continueto expand.  Storage capacity and interconnectivity will increase;network bandwidth will grow; and globalization will continue. Software will become more sophisticated and user-friendly.  Therewill be more and more data available in distributed modes, frommore and more channels of information, with the pace getting fasterand faster and with less time in which to process the information. The challenge for libraries is integrating traditional formatswith electronic formats.  There are unique opportunities for libraryand information science professionals, i.e., finding useful information,verifying what is real and accurate, serving as knowledge navigators,knowing how to organize and index large amounts of information,participating in and/or organizing peer reviews and synthesisof electronic information.
***Education*** -- Luncheonspeaker Ramsay Selden, Director, State Education Assessment Center,Council of Chief State School Officers, spoke on *Changes inEducation:  1996-2001*.  Mr. Selden stated that the overridingfactor will be the federal attempt to balance the federal budgetby 2002.  For the next couple of years, he predicted there willbe nothing more than level funding (in education) and beyond thatsubstantial cutbacks in every domestic program.  There will beconsolidation and reorganization of federal education programs. All in all, he noted, it is not a particularly rosy picture.
 According to Mr. Selden, the overriding education issues overthe next five years will be:- Resolving the issues over education content and standards; The way in which the educational system is oriented to itsusers, including students, parents, and communities;
Instructional improvement, including teaching and learningprocesses and long-term participatory networks for teachers toimprove their knowledge and practice;
Improving equity by generating and delivering on high expectationsfor disadvantaged students; and 
Developing information systems, technology, statistics, andthe integration of those systems.  The need for integrated, notisolated, data sets and more integration among functions.
 A Special Francis Keppel Award for the *development of theNCES/NCLIS Library Statistics Program* was presented to theHon. Emerson J. Elliott, NCES Commissioner, 1988-1995.  Mr. Elliottexpressed his surprise and pleasure for the award stating, "Ihave been especially pleased to work on library statistics, partlybecause everyone's so energetic and enthusiastic."
***Focus Groups***
 The major portion of time at the Form was devoted to five concurrentfocus group sessions on the following topics:  - National Level Changes State and Library System ChangesPublic Library Changes
- School Library Media Center Changes Academic Library Changes
 The groups were asked to focus their discussions on seven questionsoutlined on pp. 51-52.  
 Following are some of the key observations and recommendationsof the several Focus Groups: 
***National Level Changes***- Public support and pressure will be essential for librariesto continue to receive resources needed. Use of new technology by libraries will continue to advanceand costs will continue to decrease.  The result will be beneficialto library users and to library support.
Training of library staffs in use of technology is important. Library workers will serve as techno-guides to users.
Some federal roles in the further development of library andinformation services were identified as:  
 --A spur for innovation, a catalyst for change; 
 --Provide assurance for public access to government information;
 --Recognize and deal with the equity issues relating to the information'haves and have nots';
 --Attend to the issues of copyright and seek a balance betweenthe rights of authors and the needs of users in terms of fair use.- Develop factual data on what users need and are getting fromlibrary services and relate that data to public support.  Marketingtechniques can help libraries understand user needs. Need for demographic data on library users and non-users.
Access results of interlibrary cooperation.
***State and Library System Changes***- The federal government has a long-standing partnership withthe states in improving library services.  This small but significantinvestment becomes more important in a networked society in termsof equity of public access to information. Data is needed on the impact of library services on peoplewith special needs; the value that libraries add to information;the use of shared library facilities and resources.
Studies are also needed on access to government informationand the impact of libraries in extending access.
By 2001, the majority of libraries, including medium-sizedlibraries, will connect with Internet and state funding will beessential to accomplish.
***Public Library Changes***- By 2001, public libraries will be customer-centered, enterprise-driven,community-based, culturally-responsive, and outwardly-connected. They will be able to demonstrate the value for the publicdollars received.
Data are needed on electronic services, staffing patterns,and the relationship between types of governance to financialhealth.
Federal assistance in creating validated surveys that wouldbe useful to individual libraries.
Public libraries need to contribute to the national digitallibrary.
Data on public library branches are needed as well as dataon special service programs; for example, teaching literacy.
Studies are also needed on effective models for library collaborationand methods of measuring the value of library service.
***School Library Media Center Changes***- Educational reform requires library media center professionalservices and resources. Data are needed on how library media center services supportthe curriculum and student achievement.
Data are also needed on currency of library collections, andrelationship between use of technology and student achievement.
Studies are needed to identify the most effective technology
for teaching and learning.By 2001, partnerships between types of libraries will increase.
***Academic Library Changes***- Future surveys will reflect the status and changes in fundsexpended for print and electronic resources. Copyright will continue to be an issue pending a technologicalsolution to property rights management.
There will be more cooperation between types of libraries.
Academic libraries, as with others, will continue to searchfor ways to access their value to colleges and universities includingtheir impact on users.
Distance learning will expand greatly and will affect therole of libraries as information resource providers.
 These key points reported and provided by the Focus Group chairsand recorders were greatly enriched by the total Forum discussionswhich followed the report of each group and are included in theseProceedings.
**Library and Information Services Policy Forum**
***Changes in Library and Information Services:  1996-2001***
**Monday, May 15-16, 1995****Washington, DC****General Session****9:30 - 11:30 a.m.**Introduction to Forum**By Co-Chairs and Moderator****EMERSON ELLIOTT:**  Good morning.  I am Emerson Elliott,the Commissioner of Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education.I very much welcome you to the third Library and InformationServices Policy Forum, jointly sponsored by the U.S. NationalCommission on Libraries and Information Science, the Office ofLibrary Programs, the National Center for Education Statistics,and our new co-sponosor, the National Institute on PostsecondaryEducation, Libraries, and Lifelong Learning.  David Boesel, theActing Director of the Institute will serve as Moderator for theForum.   
 I would like to ask everyone to introduce themselves and to indicateif they attended the second Forum held a year ago.  I want todo this exercise because this meeting room is easily twice aslarge as last year's meeting room.  I think the size of this year'sgroup represents a certain maturing of this organization, whichis wonderful.  I am delighted that our friends from the CongressionalResearch Service are present to take part in today's conversation,as well.  
 The objective of this Forum is to address public policy dataneeds for all types of libraries.  This being Washington, DC,I know it is difficult to disentangle this issue from announcementsmade last week regarding the terminations of various agencies,reductions in force, and the terminations of many, many programsin the U.S. Federal Government.  If you read the fine print, atleast one termination prominently mentioned was that of federallibrary grant programs.  I trust that this is not news to anyonehere.  But, I know that it is going to be hard to disentanglethose announcements from today's conversations.  
 I would like to take a minute to discuss the philosophical basisfor holding these Forums.  It is always fun to talk about data. If you look at the agenda, you will see that it prominently featuresissues of an economic, sociological, and technical nature.  Thequestion behind all of it, and one which we need to have addressedfor our participation in this Forum is, "Where does all thisfit in from the point of view of the data that are needed by publicpolicy makers?"  Many public policy makers are in Washington,but they are not *all* in Washington.  They are in all ofour communities; they are city managers, serving on local boards,state legislatures.  There are many people who have to make decisionsabout the future of libraries, library funding, training for libraries,and the support for libraries in this country.  That is finallywhere we want to go.  And, each of these issues is an importantissue in and of itself - sociological, technological, and economic. That is what we draw out for the purposes of this conference. I think they each have a life of their own, and need to be pursued. And, you will pursue them in other Forums.
 A planning Forum was held in September 1993, and it was concludedthat the next Forum would look especially at the economics oflibrary services and the impact of technology on libraries.  So,in May of 1994 the second Forum was held and many of you participatedand many of you did not.  We want you to catch up and to be apart of this new Forum.  The economic issues that were discussedin May 1994 were on the adequacy of library funding, library costs,and the impact of the library on the economy.  Again, a very importantconceptual issue when we are talking about dealing with peoplewho need to understand libraries better in order to make decisionsabout them.  What is the effect of libraries on the communityand on the economy?
 The technological issues focused on the impact of Internet andthe National Information Infrastructure.  
 So, that moves us to today where we especially want to look atthe changes that may be anticipated for all of the libraries withwhich we are dealing:  public libraries, school library mediacenters, academic libraries, and state libraries and library systems,as well, over the period from 1996 to 2001.
 Since we last met, the Office of Educational Research and Improvement(OERI) has had its own authority amended and extended.  One ofthe pieces of that authority created an institute that has a responsibilityfor dealing with postsecondary education and lifelong learning,and also dealing *explicitly* with research issues relatingto libraries.  I welcome the change that Congress has made inthe authority for OERI because I think it offers a potential foran additional qualitative dimension to the data concerns thatI know are of concern to the library community everywhere.
 With those few preliminary remarks, I take great pleasure inintroducing the Honorable Jeanne Hurley Simon, the Chairpersonof the U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science.
**JEANNE HURLEY SIMON:**  Thank you so very much, Emerson.
 I do want to add my welcome to this Forum on behalf of the U.S.National Commission on Libraries and Information Science.  I alsowant to introduce several of the Commissioners here today:  ShirleyAdamovich from Durham, New Hampshire; Bob Willard from Dayton,Ohio; Carol DiPrete from Bristol, Rhode Island; Bobby Robertsfrom Little Rock, Arkansas.  These are the outstanding Membersof the Commission here today to contribute.  From the Commissionstaff we also have Mary Alice Hedge, Associate Executive Director;Peter Young, Executive Director, is ill today, and I regret thatbecause I lean on him very much; John Lorenz, Coordinator, LibraryStatistics Program; Jane Williams, Research Associate; and, ofcourse, running the whole show are Barbara Whiteleather and KimMiller.
 As Emerson just said, this is the third Library and InformationServices Policy Forum co-sponsored by NCLIS and NCES.  I was herelast year when I was truly surrounded by statistics that I didnot understand and policies that I was just beginning to grabhold of, and probably still a little bit in the dark.  I am especiallypleased with the cooperation and the collaboration that theseForums (or should I say 'Fora') represent.  They do reflect aninterdisciplinary spirit that is proving to be essential in anera characterized by radical and revolutionary change.  You haveheard the word "revolutionary" lately on the House sideof the Congress.  Perhaps not a wise use of the word "revolutionary,"but there it is.  
 And, which of us in library and information services are notexperiencing some kind of change?  For those of us in the federalsector and those of you in the libraries, associations, and/orindustry, we all are increasingly aware of the impact of changeon our institutions, our policies, and on the information needsof our communities.  That is why I am so glad that we are talkingabout change this morning.  
 I am sure it is no secret to any of you that change is a wayof our contemporary life.  When the President designated me theChairperson of this Commission in November 1993, I thought I knewa little bit about libraries.  But, over the last 18 months, myvision has been expanded, and I have developed a whole new respectfor the meaning of that word, "change."  I have learnedthat  technological changes brought on by networks and the globalInternet are only one of the many forces that are reshaping librariesand information services.  Social, economic, political, education,and policy changes in information technology will have a fundamentalimpact on libraries by the year 2001.  But, what is most impressiveto me about the changes in libraries and information servicesis the rapid rate with which they are coming.  But, without beingable to measure these changes, managers and policy makers willnot have the tools they need to be effective.  That is why weare here today - to develop informed projections about the stateof the future.  
 Your assignment at this Forum is to conceptualize the future. I heard John Lorenz  say, "To conceptualize the future isthe real meaning of this Forum."  The future is not justfor ourselves, librarians, or associations.  It is not just forschools, states, agencies, or constituents.  It is for the people;our children, our grandchildren, and for the people of the 21stcentury who require adequate library services.  Only then, whenwe have the services, can they participate fully in civic, social,intellectual, and economic life of our country.  
 Peter Young suggested that I quote from a Bob Dylan song thatI think you all know, "The times they are a' changing.  So,you better start swimming, or you will sink like a stone, becausethe times they are a' changing."  So, right now, I thinkI had better start swimming by introducing David Boesel, who representsa change in the Office of Educational Research and Improvement. David is the Acting Director of the National Institute on PostsecondaryEducation, *Libraries*, and Lifelong Learning.  (Applause)
**DAVID BOESEL:**  Thank you, Jeanne.  Welcome to this Forumon *Changes in Library and Information Services:  1996-2001.*
 It is very appropriate that we are taking on this subject atthis time because we are clearly in the midst of sweeping changes,both national and international - the globalization of economies,the proliferation of information technologies and attendant socialand political changes, questions of the relation of citizens togovernment, and the role of government in the United States.
 We are today to discuss how these changes affect libraries, butalso the role that libraries can play in the midst of these changes. How can libraries better meet user needs, and how can librariesbetter provide the kinds of information that policy makers needto make informed policy decisions?  We think that is very important. Informed policy decisions.
 We are rapidly approaching the year 2000, the end of the millennium. Over the course of the last decade, there have been any numberof commissions and bodies that have looked at or examined theirdisciplines in light of the end of the millennium.  We have hadGoals 2000, and we have had Work Force 2000.  And, now, as weactually approach the end of the millennium, the years are beginningto slip into 2001, as here, or 2002, when we all hope to havethe budget balanced.
Introductions
**DAVID BOESEL, Acting Director, National Institute on PostsecondaryEducation, Libraries, and Lifelong Learning.**As we approachthe end of this millennium and the beginning of the next, we havehere a group of distinguished millenniumists, and we are goingto ask them to introduce themselves and to say a few words abouttheir affiliation and to offer one sentence or so of thought aboutthe future as it relates to libraries.  And, in the course ofthis, as Emerson suggested, please mention whether you were atthe last conference or whether you are new at this one.
**SHIRLEY ADAMOVICH, Member, U.S. National Commission on Librariesand Information Science.**  I was not present for the last Forum. I am a former State Librarian of New Hampshire, and a formerCommissioner of Cultural Affairs, which is tied into the NationalEndowment for the Arts and Humanities.  We were one of the earlystates in collecting statistics, and it meant a very great dealto us in New Hampshire and in New England.  I do work very closelywith the school libraries in New England and I am happy to seethem included in this Forum.
**RICHARD AKEROYD, State Librarian of Connecticut.**  I wasnot present at the previous Forum, and I am looking forward toparticipating in this one.
**JOHN BERTOT, School of Information Studies, Syracuse University.**  However, I will soon be with the University of Maryland'sBaltimore County Department of Information Systems.  Last year,I was co-author with Chuck McClure and Doug Zweizig on the NCLIS-sponsoredstudy, *Public Libraries and the Internet*, with researchassistance provided by Carrol Kindel and NCES.  I am currentlyworking again with Chuck McClure on developing, again for NCLIS,costing models of public library Internet services.
**JULIA BLIXRUD, Program Officer, Council on Library Resources.**  I was at last year's Forum.  I look toward this Forum togive me some guidance in terms of the answers that this groupmight have.
**LAURA BREEDEN, U.S. Department of Commerce.**  I direct agrant program in the National Telecommunications and InformationAdministration.  NTIA makes grants to public institutions andstate and local governments so that they can acquire and use theinformation infrastructure.  There are some grantees here, andI am sure there are some "would be" grantees here, aswell.  My boss, Larry Irving, has a commitment to make publicschools and public libraries access points for people who mightnot have access otherwise and for everybody, really, to the informationsuperhighway.
**ADRIENNE CHUTE, National Center for Education Statistics, LibraryStatistics Unit, U.S. Department of Education.**
**SANDY COOPER, State Librarian in North Carolina.**  I wasnot at the last Forum, and I, too, am looking forward to thisForum as an opportunity to think and re-focus some of my own thinkingon where we are going with our state and federal policies on libraries. I need to persuade our General Assembly to increase data.
**EVELYN DANIEL, Professor and former Dean at the School of LibraryScience at the University of North Carolina.**  For a long timeI have been interested in change, especially change propelledby information technology.  I am currently chairing the AmericanAssociation of School Librarians' Library Statistics Committee,and, like Joe Shubert, I, too, am an optimist and looking forwardto these discussions.
**BLANE DESSY, Acting Director, National Library of Education.**  I did attend the first meeting.
**CAROL DIPRETE, Member, U.S. National Commission on Librariesand Information Science, and Dean for Academic Services, RogerWilliams University, Bristol, Rhode Island.**  I have had awonderful experience in dealing with statistics since I have beenon the Commission, 1990.  I have been to two of these Forums,and I always find them exciting because I do think data is absolutelyessential as we continue to move into new areas.  I am delightedthat I am here.  
**CHRIS DUNN, Acting Director, Discretionary Grant Programs Division,Office of Library Programs.**  I also work with the NationalCenter for Education Statistics on fast-response surveys and publiclibrary services for children and young adults and work on a contractthat we have with Westat on the Role of School and Public Librariesin the National Education Goals.
**EMERSON ELLIOTT, Commissioner, National Center for EducationStatistics, U.S. Department of Education.**  I am happy to bepresent for this, the third, annual Forum.
**GORDON GREEN, Chief, Governments Division, U.S. Bureau of theCensus.**  We collect a lot of statistical information on librariesas part of our regular program and also for our sponsor, the NationalCenter for Education Statistics.  I think the challenge for usis to use the latest technology available to produce the verybest possible statistics for the library community.  I was hereat the previous Forum, and I am looking forward to the one thisyear, as well.
**JANE BORTNICK GRIFFITH, Acting Chief of the Science and TechnologyDivision**, **Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress.**  Working in the area of policy and information technologyissues, over time I have seen a growth in interest in both theawareness of and policy attention to issues of access to information.
**MARY ALICE HEDGE, Associate Executive Director, U.S. NationalCommission on Libraries and Information Science.**  I have beenwith the Commission now for 28 years.  We had a Planning Forumtwo years ago to plan for last year's Forum, and it is just soincredibly stimulating to go back, even now, and look at the resultsof that Forum.  Just know that what you do here today will havea resounding effect as we go on and will help policy makers asthey attempt to deal with today's trying times.
**GLEN HOLT, Executive Director, St. Louis Public Library.** Like, my colleague Marilyn, I am a "newey."  I am involvedin a couple of things in St. Louis that are relevant to what weare talking about here today.  We have been trying to do truecost accounting within our operation, and it has been both excitingand frustrating.  We have also been trying to actually measurethe value of children's services.  I am looking forward to theForum.  I am grateful to be here. 
**BARBARA HUMES, National Institute on Postsecondary Education,Libraries, and Lifelong Learning.**  I have been there a shorttime, but during the past six months I have become keenly awareof the paucity of data that we do have on the diverse librariesand the communities that they serve, and the value of that service.
 [David Boesel noted that Barbara Humes is the Team Leader workingon libraries and library research issues in the Institute.]
**NEAL KASKE, Office of Library Programs, Office of EducationalResearch and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education.**  Iattended last year's Forum.  I am a Program Officer dealing withHigher Education Act discretionary grant programs.
**CARROL KINDEL, Head of the Library Statistics Unit, NationalCenter for Education Statistics.**  I was here for the firstpolicy Forum.  My main interest is in participating and hearingabout the changes that you see coming so that we can keep up withthe data collections and be able to have the data that are reallyneeded to not only inform but to give the information needed aswe undergo these changes.
**ROBERT KLASSEN, Acting Director, Office of Library Programs,U.S. Department of Education.**  We have seven library grantprograms, and we hope there will be continued funding for thosekinds of programs.  In the past we have joined the National Commissionand NCES in supporting these Forums.  So, we are very much interestedin the data that will be collected here in our discussions.
**ROSLYN KORB, Director, Postsecondary Institutional StudiesUnit, National Center for Education Statistics.**  We do Postsecondarysurveys including part of the Academic Library Survey.
**ELAINE KROE, National Center for Education Statistics.**Ihelp implement the library surveys at the National Center forEducation Statistics.  I was not at the first Forum.
**KEITH CURRY LANCE, Director, Library Research Service, ColoradoDepartment of Education.**  Last summer, in Olde Town, Alexandria,Virginia, I got into a carriage with a couple of colleagues whowere from other distant states, and the driver turned around andasked us why we were all there together.  I said, "We arehere to meet for three days about library statistics."  Thedriver looked on us with great pity, like she could not imaginea more deadly topic for three days of meetings.  I just pattedher on the hand and said, "You are going to have to trustme on this.  It is a more exciting topic than you could possiblyimagine."
**JOHN LORENZ, Coordinator, Library Statistics Program, U.S.National Commission on Libraries and Information Science.** I have had about 30+ years of federal library service and thereis one sentence that has sustained me throughout:  "This,too, shall pass away."
**MARY JO LYNCH, Director, Office of Research and Statistics,American Library Association.**  I have been at the previousForums, and I have worked very closely with the National Centerfor Education Statistics on public library statistics, schoollibrary statistics, academic library statistics, and state librarystatistics.  I am looking forward, a lot, to this day.
**GAIL MAKINEN, Specialist in Economic Policy, CongressionalResearch Service, Library of Congress.**  I have been at theResearch Service for 11 years.  If I have to talk about the future,my basic belief is that we should keep funding libraries, or informationservices, in general!  I will vote every time I have a chanceto expand libraries and library facilities, either at the locallevel or at the federal level.  Keep up the good work.
**BETTY MARCOUX, Head Librarian of a dual high school campusin Tucson, Arizona, and Adjunct Faculty Member at the Universityof Arizona School of Library Science.**  Currently, I am Chairof the Visions Guidelines Committee for the American Associationof School Librarians, which is in the process of developing, andwill be writing shortly, new guidelines for school library programs.
 I am delighted to be here.  It is my first opportunity, and Iam really excited to see what we come up with.
**SUSAN MARTIN, University Librarian, Georgetown University.**  I guess I should also mention that I am President of theAssociation of College and Research Libraries (but that is onlyfor another six weeks).  In Emerson's terminology, I am new; Iwas not at the previous Forum.  I have been involved in informationtechnology and libraries since 1964, so I guess in that sense,I am "old."
 I am particularly interested in statistics and measurement. As a former Member of the ARL Statistics Committee, we felt therewas a good deal to measurement of access in terms of quality inaddition to quantity.
**MARILYN GELL MASON, Director, Cleveland Public Library.** I have been there for eight years.  Previously, I was the Directorof the Atlanta Public Library, and way back, in another incarnation,I was Executive Director of the first White House Conference onLibrary and Information Services.  I believe this meeting is extremelyimportant as we are what we measure.  I think libraries, rightnow, are ahead of what we are measuring and without accurate measurementswe have no way to communicate what we are doing to the rest ofthe world.  I am a "newey."
**JOAN MICHIE, Westat.**  I am directing a study looking atthe role of school and public libraries in support of Goals 2000and school reform.    We are currently in our survey developmentphase, and I hope this Forum will be a potential source of questionsfor us.
**KIM MILLER, Special Assistant, U.S. National Commission onLibraries and Information Science.**
**MEB NORTON, Director of Libraries, Metairie Park Country DaySchool, Louisiana.**  This is my first Forum.  I am also onthe Vision Committee of the American Association of School Libraries.
**PAUL EVAN PETERS, Executive Director, Coalition for NetworkedInformation.**  Before that I was in charge of systems for NewYork Public Libraries and Columbia University libraries.  TheCoalition is a vehicle of collaborative action in the networkedinformation environment.  I published an article in *LibraryJournal* in April entitled, "Information Age Avatars." The title conveys where I am coming from; in particular, I advancethe view that a number of the major questions of the quality oflife in the 21st century depend upon librarians beginning to thinkof themselves as in the vanguard of the information age.  I offer,what I hope you will find entertaining, the metaphor of librariansbeing "birds in the cage" for the information age. ..  being held forward by our communities as they progress forwardtrying to determine whether the environment ahead is toxic.  Iam pleased to observe that in this month's issue of the *HarvardBusiness Review* there is an article entitled, "Trustin Virtual Organizations," that advances the same view. ..  that libraries, with health care and a couple of other "knowledgeindustries" are in the vanguard of coping with the real issuesof the Information Age.  I was at the original Forum, and I amglad to be here today.
**BABETTE 'BABS' PITT, Media Specialist, Richard Montgomery HighSchool, Montgomery County, Maryland.**  In fact, I taught aclass there this morning, and I am right into the new technologyusing PC Globe, Info-Finder, and lots of other sources using Sailor,which is a wonderful Maryland Telecommunications System.  So,I am into change.  I have seen pupils every day.  I have beenin elementary schools, although now I am in a secondary school. I think I am a perfect person for looking at change since I workwith students and teachers in partnership every day. This is myfirst Forum.
**DENNIS REYNOLDS, President, CAPCON Library Network, Washington,DC**.  I was at the first Forum.  I am interested in the roleof libraries and publicly-funded institutions.
**BOBBY ROBERTS, Member, U.S. National Commission on Librariesand Information Science and Director, Central Arkansas LibrarySystem, Little Rock.**  Our System is for about 300,000 peopleand it is a rather odd mixture.  We are the only urban libraryin the state.  We also serve one county that is probably one ofthe poorest counties in the South, which I can assure you makesit very poor.  As far as statistical information, we have a problemin that the type of information that is collected and that workswell for urban areas is not necessarily useful when I am tryingto deal with the quorum court in Perry County, Arkansas, whichis a very rural county.  I am very interested in what kinds ofstatistics we are collecting and how you deal with a conflictwith what you need in an urban area and what you need in a ruralarea.  And, I am having to deal with both of them.  So, sometimesI am not sure what kind of statistics I need and what works best.
**ELEANOR JO RODGER, President, Urban Libraries Council**. Prior to this position, I was Executive Director of the PublicLibrary Association.  Prior to that I was a hired pen on the earlyoutput measures.  My interest at this point is in understandinglibraries as 'means', not as 'ends', and in the statistical andresearch efforts we need to talk about those 'ends' significantly.
**P. ROYAL SHIPP, Acting Chief of the Education and Public WelfareDivision, Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress.**  Our Division handles support for social policy questions,including Social Security, health care, Medicare, Medicaid, educationproblems, welfare reform, and so forth.  So, very quickly, weget into social policy issues working with the Congress.  It hasbeen a very busy time for us working with the new majority inthe House and Senate.
**JOSEPH SHUBERT, State Librarian and Assistant Commissionerfor Libraries in New York State.**  I have been at the New YorkState Library for 17 years.  Before that, I was State Librarianof Ohio and, way back, State Librarian of Nevada for three years. I was at the Forum last year.
 The New York State Library is a research library for the government,people, and libraries of the State.  It is a member of the Associationof Research Libraries.  The State Library has a Division of LibraryDevelopment, which has responsibility for the continuous improvementof New York's 7,000 libraries and the cooperative systems whichsupport them.  The Library Development program is supported by$81 million in state aid.  We also administer the Federal LibraryServices and Construction Act in New York State.
 Discussion of change and the future of library services is importantbecause people's library and information service needs are changing. Statistics are important as libraries change to meet people'sneeds for information and education.
**GARY STRONG, Director, Queens Borough Public Library.** Previously, I was the California State Librarian.  Prior to thatI was the Deputy Director of the Washington State Library.  Iam very interested in being here.  It is the first time I havebeen at the Forum, but I have been in and out of the NationalCommission's activities, it seems like, over a lot of years. I attended the first Commission hearings in 1967 in Seattle, sothis view is one that is long in coming in terms of the collaborativenature of it.  I am interested in that collaboration that is emergingas we look at the policy issues that really need to be answered. While I am interested in measurement in statistics, I am farmore interested in the policy issues that are facing librariestoday.
**BETTY TUROCK, Director, School of Communication, Informationand Library Studies, Rutgers University.**  I have been therefor about ten years.  Prior to that time, I held administrativeposts in eight states in school, academic, but mostly in publiclibraries.  I am President-elect of the 57,000 member AmericanLibrary Association (ALA).  That number tends to move Congresswhen I speak to them.  Fifty-seven thousand advocates representsa lot of votes.
 The focus of my year as President of ALA will be insuring a majorrole for libraries in the evolving electronic national infrastructure. In fact, my theme is, "Equity on the Information Superhighway,"equity for people, for libraries, and for Nations.  One of thethings I learned as a very active, traveling President-elect isthat decisionmakers need facts about libraries.  When I testifiedbefore Congress, or when I have had the opportunity to speak withReed Hundt, the Federal Communication Commissioner, and to Membersof Congress, they all gave me a variation on the same theme, "Showme the data.  Give me the facts.  What will libraries produceif they are active members of the information superhighway?" So, my interest in this Forum is keen.
**ANN WEEKS, Director, School Division and the Young Adult LibraryServices Division at the American Library Association and theCoordinator of the National Library Power Program**, which isa major initiative of the Readers Digest Fund.  One of the thingswe are finding through that program is that school libraries canreally serve as catalysts for change.  I think that with a futurecharacterized by change, kids have to have new opportunities forteaching and learning.  I am delighted that school libraries area part of this Forum this year.  I was not here last year.
**BARBARA WHITELEATHER, Special Assistant, Library StatisticsProgram, U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science.**
**ROBERT WILLARD, Member, U.S. National Commission on Librariesand Information Science.**I am in my second year as an NCLIS Member.  In real life I work for a legal publisher and have beena fairly consistent advocate for the commercial marketplace asa primary means for meeting the library and information needsof the population.  But, I also recognize the need for wise publicintervention when the marketplace fails.  I am interested in thetopic of the future.  I have three favorite quotations about thefuture.  The first one is, "The future ain't what it usedto be."  Second, "If you do not know where you are going,then any way will get you there."  And, the third is:  "Thebest way to predict the future is to create it."  Unfortunately,I cannot give proper attribution for any of those quotations;I have just heard them forever.  However, as a student of AbrahamLincoln, I can give attribution for John Lorenz's quotation-thatwas actually presented by Lincoln in a speech in 1859 to somefarmers in Wisconsin.
**JANE WILLIAMS, Research Associate, U.S. National Commissionon Libraries and Information Science.**  Last week I quotedto Chairperson Simon something that I had read recently talkingabout a person acting as though a moment's thought is a momentwasted.  I think a Forum like this can be very important in givingus time to think.  I think it is even more important given ourpolitical and fiscal climate.
**JEFF WILLIAMS. National Center for Education Statistics, LibraryStatistics Unit, U.S. Department of Education.**  I am alsoProject Officer for the Academic Library Survey and the SchoolLibrary Media Center Survey.
**FRANK WITHROW, Director, Learning Technologies, Council ofChief State School Officers.**  I believe that the new DigitalLibrary is essential to all education reform, and I will go sofar as to say that we will not have education reform unless wehave good digital libraries accessible to all of our citizenson a lifelong basis.
**JEANNE HURLEY SIMON, Chairperson, U.S. National Commissionon Libraries and Information Science.**Bob Willard, I thinkyou are all wrong on that Abraham Lincoln quote.  I think it isSt. Theresa of Avila who said it a long time ago.   (Laughter)
Forecasts for Next Five Years, 1996-2001
**DAVID BOESEL:**  It is now time to turn to the presentations. We have three presentations of about 20 minutes each, and thenone-half hour for discussion and general questions and comments. I ask you to hold your comments and questions until the end ofthe third presentation so we can maximize the opportunity fordiscussion.  
 We have three distinguished speakers here today from the CongressionalResearch Service. 
 Our first speaker is Gail Makinen, Specialist, Economic Policy,Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress.  
Forecasts for the Next Five Years, 1996-2001
*Economic*
**GAIL MAKINEN:**  Good morning.  I would like to preface myremarks this morning with a "thank you" to all the librarianspresent.
 Over the past nearly 30 years that I have been doing research,my success has, in no small measure, been due to the efforts ofcountless librarians.  Yet, I seldom see these individuals whosetireless devotion to their job makes my job a lot easier.  Justin case you are one of the individuals who have handled my numerousrequests over the years, thanks again.  You are truly the unsungheros of my life and I owe you a great debt of gratitude.  Itis a pleasure to acknowledge it.
 This morning I have been asked to talk about the outlook forthe U.S. economy for the coming five years.  Let me begin by talkingabout where we are, right now.  Our current economic expansionis 50 months old.  As economic expansions go, this one is nearingmiddle age.  If you take a look at the nine completed economicexpansions since the end of World War II, their average age isexactly 50 months.  So our current expansion of 50 months is averageor middle-aged.  
 Averages, however, can conceal a great deal of variation.  Andso it is with business cycles.  We have had two very-long economicexpansions among these nine since World War II.  One of them dominatedthe decade of the 1960's and it ran for 106 months.  It is thelongest economic expansion in American history.  The second longesteconomic expansion dominated the decade of the 1980's and ranfor 92 months. 
 We have also had some very short economic expansions, one ofwhich lasted 12 months and another lasted 24 months.  
 We are now at a crucial point, I think, in the current expansion. The Federal Reserve has been attempting for the past 12 monthsto engineer what is termed in the newspapers, "a soft landing." Now, what exactly is a "soft landing?"  Well, throughinterest rate hikes and decreased credit availability, the FederalReserve has been attempting to slow the growth in aggregate demandto match the sustainable growth in our capacity to supply output. Our capacity to supply output is estimated to grow at about 2½ percent per year, and it is a combination of two factors.  Theestimated growth in our labor force and the estimated growth inour productivity.  Our labor force is expected to grow over thedecade of the 1990's by about 1 percent.  Our productivity isexpected to grow about 1½  percent per year.  
 The combination of the two, then, gives the long-run abilityof the economy to grow on a sustainable basis; that is about 2½ percent.  What the Federal Reserve is attempting to do throughthe interest rate hikes that we have had over the last 15 monthsand decreased credit availability is to slow the growth of demandto match the growth in our ability to supply goods and services.
 The Federal Reserve will be successful if the growth of grossdomestic product (GDP), which is our measure of total output,is cut to about 2½  percent.  The GDP data are in for thefirst quarter of 1995, and what do they show?  During the firstquarter, GDP grew at an annual rate of 2.7 percent.  While thatnumber is going to be subject to some revision, it seems to indicatethat the Federal Reserve is about on target.
 During 1994, for example, GDP grew 4 percent, approximately. During the fourth quarter of 1994, it grew at an annual rateof 5 percent.  So, it appears that these interest rate hikes thatwe have seen and the decreased availability of credit are, infact, beginning to take hold since GDP growth has been reducedto a little under 3 percent.  However, there is weakness in thatgrowth rate number.  The principal weakness has to do with thefact that about 35percent of the extra output produced in thefirst quarter of this year - I am not talking about the totaloutput produced in the first quarter, but just the extra outputproduced over what we were producing in the fourth quarter - wasnot sold.  It was added to inventories.  Now, this is not necessarilybad.  After all, the fourth quarter was a time of good sales,and you have to replenish the shelves a bit.  But 35percent ofthe new (additional) output produced in the first quarter of thisyear was simply added to inventories, it was not sold.  
 If this continues on into the second and third quarters of thisyear, production will have to be adjusted downward to match thedecrease in demand.  When that occurs, the possibility looms ofa recession.  When  we starting cutting back production to matchdemand, there is the possibility of a recession. 
 However, if a recession does occur later this year, and I willtalk about the possibility of that, it should be a very shortand shallow recession for one important reason.  That being thatinflation is not very serious right now.  We have a very low inflationrate for this point in the business cycle.  A primary reason forpast recessions has been to deal with an inflation rate that policymakers believed was too high.  The resulting recession with itsdecline in demand and rise in unemployment has been the traditionalmeans for dealing with inflation.  We create a recession.  Thepurpose of the recession is to get the inflation rate down. 
 If we should have weakness in demand this time around, or a recession,it is going to be because of difficulties in fine-tuning an economythrough monetary policy, not because we need to reduce an inflationrate that policy makers think is too high.  I emphasize fine-tuningthe economy through monetary policy.  There is no magical formulafor its executions.  The Federal Reserve has raised the interestrate seven times between February 1994 and February 1995.  Therehave been seven rate hikes.  This has been done with a lot ofjudgment involved.  There is no magic formula that says, "Ifyou raise the federal funds rate from 3 percent to 8 percent youwill slow economic growth down from 5 percent to 3 percent." There is no rule like that.  A lot of these adjustments are basedon historical evidence.  Sometimes, the Federal Reserve does makemistakes.  It tightens up too much.
 If signs of weakness in the economy do occur, these signs willbe of two types.  First of all we will see GDP growth slowingdown considerably; it will be below 
2½ percent and, second, the unemployment rate will rise above6 percent.  If the unemployment rates rises above 6 percent, theFederal Reserve will realize that it has made a mistake.  It hastightened too much.  Because there is no serious inflation problem,it will be able to reverse its policy course immediately.
 Had there been a substantial inflation problem, the Federal Reservewould have had to wait until the evidence showed that the inflationrate was down before it reversed policy.  By this time around,since inflation is not a serious problem, if the Federal Reservemade a mistake by tightening too quickly, too much, it can reversepolicy very, very quickly.  It would not take much time to doso.
 My discussion thus far raises the question, "What is thepossibility of a recession coming in the next 12 months?" Or, put another way, "What is the possibility that the FederalReserve will be successful in engineering a soft landing?" I can go to two sources for an answer to those questions.  
 First of all I can take a look at the economic forecasts thathave been made.  There are plenty of people making economic forecasts. They are in the academic community, in the financial community,and in the business community.  These people make forecasts thatare updated monthly.  The most recent forecasts I have are forthe month of May; they were prepared in April.  These forecastssay that, almost to a person, (and I look at about 50 of them),the Federal Reserve is going to be successful, that is, it willbe successful in engineering a soft landing.  Almost all of theforecasts, if you look at the next 12-18 months, expect GDP growthto be 2-3 percent; that the unemployment rate will be kept closeto 6 percent; and that the inflation rate will be low.  That isthe evidence from the forecasters. There is also other evidence. There are a lot of people out there who put money on the lineand they put it into the stock market.  The stock market may bea good indicator of whether the investing public thinks that theFederal Reserve will be successful.  Well, what have we recentlyobserved?  Over the first five months of this year, the Dow IndustrialAverage has increased by nearly 20 percent; that is the investingpublic's confirmation that they think the Fed is going to be successful. 
 If the Federal Reserve is successful in engineering a soft landing,this does not mean that we, over the next three or four years,might not have some problems.  Where will the problems come from? Well, there are a number of pitfalls that may occur.  One ofthese has to do with foreign economic behavior.  We are not theonly country in the world and what happens in foreign countrieshas an affect on our economy.  One of the ways that we are insulatedfrom economic developments in foreign countries is through theuse of  flexible exchange rates.  Flexible exchange rates tendto balance off what happens in foreign countries relative to whathappens here.  If their business cycles do not coincide with ourbusiness cycle, the foreign exchange rate helps to ensure thattheir business cycles do not have much of an effect on our businesscycle.
 However, there can be transitory effects, to be sure.  And, thosetransitory affects can affect US GDP growth for a quarter or so. Foreign economic developments are, thus, one possible sourceof problems for us in the coming five years.  Another source ofproblems is what are called, "supply shocks."  And themost noticeable supply shock that you are familiar with are oilprice disruptions.  We had them in 1973, 1979, and the most recentone was associated with the Gulf War.  Those supply shocks canhave very serious affects on America's ability to produce.  Theycan raise the price of oil dramatically, and that has an affecton production costs, and, through production costs, on the inflationrate.  So, we have to worry about supply shocks.  The biggestones that we have noticed are oil price shocks.  But, there arealso food price shocks that come about every so often.
 The final kind of pitfall that may affect the economy is thebehavior of the American public.  How optimistic are we aboutthe future?  How pessimistic are we about the future?  This caninfluence how much we spend.  That is, if the business communitysuddenly gets very optimistic about the future, outlays for businessinvestments will likely go up.  If the consuming public becomesoptimistic about the future, they tend to buy more big ticketitems.  All of this helps to boost economic growth in the U.S. We cannot discount the fact that individual behavior varies overtime and that individual behavior has an affect on the U.S. businesscycle.
 Thus, over the next five years, if the Fed is successful in engineeringa soft landing, as the forecasting public tends to believe itwill, there is still the possibility that the U.S. economy willbe subject to shocks along the way.  These are the events thatwe cannot forecast.
 Suppose we are successful and there are not any shocks; and theFederal Reserve engineers a soft landing.  What can we look forwardto over the next four to five years?  Remember, the longest economicexpansion we have ever had in American history lasted 106 months,and that economic expansion came to an end because of the VietnamWar.  If the Vietnam War had not occurred, one wonders how longthat expansion would have lasted.  
 Given that the current economic expansion is now 50 months old,and if it goes on for another 50 months, that is almost to theyear 2000, what  can we expect in terms of growth ?  We can expectan economic growth rate of about 2½ percent a year in realterms.  That is not very high compared to our historic average,but it is about what we can expect.  
 Let me summarize by saying that the economic expansion now ismiddle-aged.  There is no reason why it cannot go into old ageif we manage to engineer a soft landing which market participantsthink we will be successful in doing.  We can look forward toanother four or five years of slow but steady growth.  We willhave a GDP growth rate of about 2½ percent, an unemploymentrate that stays at about 6 percent, and an inflation rate thatwill probably be in the neighborhood of 2 percent.  That is theconsensus forecast for the remainder of this century.
 Thank you.  Let me just conclude by saying, "Who says thateconomists cannot be optimistic?"
**DAVID BOESEL:**  Than you, Gail.  Our next speaker is P.Royal Shipp, Associate Director, Office of Research Planning andCoordination, Library of Congress, on the topic of social andpolicy issues as they relate to changes in libraries over thenext five years.
Forecasts for the Next Five Years, 1996-2001
*Social*
**P. ROYAL SHIPP:**  My credentials as a supporter and loverof libraries are also strong.  I have worked for the Library ofCongress for 17 years.  In addition, ten years ago we moved fromthe City of Alexandria to another Washington suburban communityand, when we left, there was a nice article about our family inthe local community newspaper in Alexandria which talked aboutthe accomplishments of our children in school and their athletic,musical, and academic accomplishments.  It talked about my wifeand her community service; she was involved in community, schoolboard, and church activities.  And, when it got to me, it saidthat I was a well-known and valued customer of the Burke Branchof the Alexandria City Library, which, in fact, was the case.
 I said earlier that we hope that the Library of Congress is sparedduring these cutbacks.  It is not clear that it will be.  In fact,on this very day there is a hearing before the Appropriation Committeein the Senate on the Legislative Branch, and, specifically, onthe Library of Congress.  One of the things that our Directorhas been doing is going around and talking with all of the Congressmenabout how valuable the services of CRS are to the Congress.  Wehave been heavily involved in the considerations leading to legislationduring these months of the 104th Congress, and I expect we willcontinue to be.
 Those of you who know the Congressional Research Service (CRS)know that one of the things which we claim we do that makes usmost valuable to the Congress is our non-biased and non-partisanapproach to issues.  We work with both Democrats and Republicansin the same way and provide the same kind of information.  Whilewe say we are not biased, in one sense we probably are.  Thatis, we value the institution of the Congress more greatly thanthe general public does, I suppose.  That is one way to say it. Many of us have the view also that all of the many problems thereare in democracy, the best cure for them is more democracy.  Thatcould be discussed I expect, but that is not the purpose heretoday.  I am saying this just to give you an idea of how we havetried to approach the work of policymaking in the Congress.
 In economics, which Gail described, there are many forecastersand forecasts.  The idea of a social forecast is very complicated,and there are not many social forecasts.  Most of them come aboutin the context of legislation; Goals 2000, the education programis an example.  Most pieces of legislation indicate that thingswill get better as a result of enactment of this legislation. For one thing, a five-year period is not very long to think aboutchanges in social conditions.  At the end of five years, one wouldthink that social conditions will not have changed much from whatthey are now.  They will be driven by some factors and policieswill certainly change, but the conditions, themselves, may not. 
 One of the things we do for the Congress in working with themis to provide a framework of analysis in thinking about issues. This is what I will try to discuss today, rather than make aspecific forecast about how social conditions will change.  Iwill start by talking about some pretty fundamental ideas, becausethat is how I think about this issue, but it is also the way thiscurrent revolution has been couched by its promoters.  I lookedup the word, "social" in the *Oxford English Dictionary* and it talked about it as "being capable of being associatedwith, or united through others.  Characterized by mutual intercourse,friendliness, geniality, united by common ties.  Living in communities. Desirous of enjoying the society of others.  Connected by thesociety as a natural and ordinary condition of human life."
 Social issues, following from this then, are those that resultfrom such associations and connections.  We think of them, andthey are described often in common and political terms, as "freedom,""safety," "health," "prosperity,"or "economic opportunity."  A feeling about the future;a feeling of optimism; progress, particularly with regard to futuregenerations.  Indeed, one of our founding documents, the Declarationof Independence, couched it in these terms, "We are endowedby our creator by inalienable rights having to do with life, liberty,and the pursuit of happiness."  And, in a shorthand way tothink about all this, is the American Dream.  
 But, to make a social forecast, five years is a short time. Very quickly, then, you get into policy and legislative issues. To do this kind of analysis, you would want to describe wherewe are now; a baseline or starting point.  And, there is substantialdisagreement about that.  However, there is substantial consensusthat in terms of social policy we are not on the right track. These ideas were formulated during the last election as a breakdownin family values, societal problems with sex, drugs, violence. You will be familiar with the Speaker's formulation which hestated often, and which was picked up by other candidates, about12-year old children shooting other 12-year olds; 14-year oldshaving babies; and 17-year olds receiving high school diplomasthat they could not even read.
 So, clearly, the discussion about social values and social policymoves very quickly into the social realm, which, in fact, is wherequestions of values are discussed in our country and are debated. Politics are about values; it is about other things, of course,too, including the distribution of public government benefitsand jobs.  The one thing about the political process is that itis the nature of politicians to act.  And, indeed, the actionswe are seeing results from the outcome of the election.
 In conducting this debate, not only is there disagreement aboutwhere we are but about how we got to where we are, the root causes. What has worked and what has not worked.  The debate has longbeen about the value of the Great Society programs.  Now it maymove even further back to discuss the New Deal and the value ofthose programs.  Social Security, after all, was the first ofthe big entitlement programs.  And, this debate is taking placein some very basic concepts having to do with individual freedomversus community; public versus private activities.  The questionabout shrinking the government, market solutions to problems interms of vouchers and choice for education, the question of publicversus private, gets into most social debates.  It did in thehealth-care debate last year and again this year, and I expectwill again when the Social Security issue is debated sometimein the future.
 Out of all of this, somehow, came the great push to balance theFederal budget by the year 2002.  That idea and commitment, ofcourse, is what is driving much of the policy today.  This debate,also, is taking place within the context of what certain economistsmight call "exogenous variables."  There are factorsthat affect the debate that are really outside of the policy makersto control.  I think the sense of moral decline is one that ishard to get a handle on.  It has already been mentioned the factthat this seems to be an age of great uncertainty.  Great changesin terms of the globalization of the economy are taking place. It is a fact that we seem not to have a common purpose to uniteus as much as we did during the time when we were fighting ourway out of the Great Depression or winning the second World Waror winning the Cold War.  There are many factors that make thisa particularly difficult time for people in thinking about thefuture and having optimism in the future.  There is also the factorof the aging of the population.  The first, depending on how youmeasure it, of the babyboom generation is reaching age 50 aboutnow.  This first wave of the babyboom generation will be 65 inthe year 2010 and it is really at that time and for the next 20years, that the great pressure of a retired and aging populationwill come strongly to bear.  
 The role and the size of the government almost become an exogenousvariable (this is where I am not quite on target, Gail).  Overthe past several years, the expenditures of the federal governmenthave been 22 percent of the GDP.  The revenues coming into thefederal government have been 19 percent.  Around there, is wherewe have been since 1980, almost, and it is going to be very hardto move away from it.  That is what the balanced budget debatereally is, our deficit is 3 percent of GDP.  That is what thedebate is about, and coming to grips and dealing with that aredifficulties we will see in the debates over social policy, and,particularly, the budget.
 Another of these kinds of factors that are exogenous.  It isa little bit like the Food Stamp Program.  The Food Stamp Programreally is not an entitlement program, but it acts just like oneso it is always lumped together with the entitlement programs. The intractable rise of health care costs will make it difficultfor us to deal with the questions of Medicare.  Health care takesup 15 percent of the GDP in this country; that is substantiallylarger than other countries, including other industrial countries. That is about $1 trillion a year, but, of course, that is notall federal; the federal share of that amount is much smaller. That is the total expenditures in the economy on health care. And, you can see with $1 trillion at stake why the debate overhealth care is very passionate and very, very difficult.  Thereare huge resources that come to bear.
 And, finally, the intractable nature of some social problems- education reform might well be one.  Another one I will mentionalso is welfare reform, because it has come to mean such a bigconstellation of issues.  It used to be that when we talked aboutwelfare reform (and remember this is not the first time we havetalked about welfare reform) it was how to get people off of welfarerolls and into jobs.  And this is still part of the debate.  But,the debate has become more than that now.  It has to do with ourideas about federalism; what the responsibilities of the stategovernment vis a vis the national government's responsibilities. It has to do with how to deal with the question of out-of-wedlockbirths, which is a big problem in this country and in other industrialcountries, too.  The debate has to do with the nature of entitlementprograms because welfare programs up until now have been entitlements. That is, if you were eligible for the benefits, then you gotthe benefits.  Now, under the current proposal, that will no longerbe the case.  It is something that was raised at the beginningof the debate, not so much now, but it is still there.  Thereis the matter of under what conditions do you take children awayfrom their parents and have them dealt with in other types ofinstitutional settings.  
 To demonstrate the hazards of the social forecasts, we need tokeep in mind that the social agenda now is much different thanit would have been had the election last November turned out differently. The social agenda could change again, but we do not know that,and I will not attempt to make any predictions about the election. The really smart people who follow this a lot were, in fact,a few months before the election predicting that the House ofRepresentatives would go Republican in the last election, whichis something that seemed almost impossible to think about a fewmonths before that.  But, the election did turn out a certainway, and the political debate is much different as a result ofthat election.  Mr. Gingrich said, "If this is not a mandate,I would like to know what a mandate looks like."  And, theyhave been acting very much as if it were a mandate, of course. 
 In talking about what the social agenda is and what the socialpolicies are, it is often discussed in two different ways.  Oneis the programs and legislation mostly having to do with economicgrowth, regulations, taxes, and the federal budget.  And thatis what the House of Representatives spent its first 100 daysdoing.  However, there is a social agenda, as you all are aware. And, sometime during this week there will be a press conferenceby the Christian Coalition and other organizations to talk abouta contract with the family.  And, the social agenda is much differentfrom the one that has been enacted so far in the House of Representatives,although it has some strong features, of course.  The people whopromote the social agenda are often referred to as social conservativesand their agenda includes abortion legislation, school prayer,sex education, and abolishing NEA, NEH, and even the Corporationfor Public Broadcasting.
 The economic issues have been divisive and will continue to beso.  The social agenda is usually thought to be potentially muchmore divisive and difficult for the Congresss to deal with . 
 To sum up, the main elements, it seems to me, in this socialrevolution that we have seen underway in terms of our policy,and in watching the policy on through the rest of this Congresswill be as follows. I have already mentioned welfare reform. That is an issue that, again, has changed and it is much broadernow in what it is attempting to do and what it is attempting toaccomplish, and what its promoters are advocating for it, andthe way in which the debate is being couched.  The big debateover Medicare spending simply pre-stages a bigger debate whichwill be coming sometime in the next several years over the questionof generation equity.  One can make the argument that the elderlypart of the population is getting more of the largess of the governmentin some ways than other groups of the population.  It seems tome that will be how the debate will be couched.  The questionsof racial equity, and class equity, will also be considered. But, generation equity will be a big issue.  Many of the elderlypopulation now are quite prosperous.  They have good pensions,good Social Security coverage, and good health insurance.  And,it is not clear at this point, that that will be sustainable,particularly when the big baby boom generation begins its retirementin 15 years from now.
 The other basic idea behind this revolution is the shrinkageof the federal government.  That is specific in the legislationdealing with balancing the budget without raising taxes.  Now,you can balance the budget lots of ways.  In order to shrink thefederal government, though, you have the balance the budget withoutraising taxes.  This will be a big part of the issue.
 Well, after this revolution, what can we say about social conditions. Will social conditions be any better as a result?  That is theintention, but will it actually be the case?  That is an area,of course, where this is much disagreement and that is what thepolitical debates come down to.  One of the problems in tryingto make such a forecast is that there is not much agreement insome of these areas about what will work as federal policy.  Thisis particularly true, again, in the case of welfare reform.  Ithink one of the attractive features of the current way that debatehas been carried out has been a recognition of the fact that peopledo not have ideas about what will work in terms of getting thewelfare recipients off the roles and into jobs.  They do not havenearly as much confidence in their ability to do that as thereused to be.  
 Let me just stop there.
**DAVID BOESEL:**  Thank you for the very broad presentation. It will provide a lot of food for thought in our discussions. I think it covered a great many important subjects.
 Our next speaker is Jane Bortnick Griffith, Specialist, Scienceand Technology, Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress. Jane will be speaking about technology and technological changesover the next five years or so.
Forecasts for the Next Five Years, 1996-2001
*Technology*
**JANE BORTNICK GRIFFITH:**  Technology forecasts, though interesting,are generally wrong in both directions:  in the short term andin the long term,  They are usually in the short term wrong becausethings just do not happen quite as fast as people think they will. They are usually wrong in the long term because things happenfaster than people think they will.  So, I always hesitate tomake any kind of technology forecast.
 In general terms, technology will indeed continue to developat a very rapid pace, certainly in the area of computing and telecommunicationinformation technologies, which is what I will focus on today. The indicators are that the price-performance ratio that we haveseen (where price comes down and performance goes up) over timeis going to continue to improve, and we can pretty much counton that.  I do not think that the challenge is so much that technologywill get better - we know that technology will get better.  Thechallenge is really related to:  (1) seeing how effectively weare able to use that technology; (2) how well it is accepted;(3) what kind of markets develop as a result; (4) what the impactwill be; and (5) how technology will be applied.  I think thereare a lot of variables associated with this that I will get to.As I said, I do think that we can count on basic things.  Forexample, computing power is going to continue to expand.  Recentlyin an article in *Computer World,* Gordon Bell estimatedthat we will be getting 32 megabytes on a single chip and thatwill be the norm by the year 2000.  In addition, the processorwill be running about 400 megahertz to 1 gigahertz.  So, if youtake those kinds of projections you see a lot of capacity anda lot of power there.  Another thing we can count on is increasesin miniaturization which means that you can imbed computers inall kinds of devices which gives you a lot of capacity to do thingsin new kinds of ways.  The miniaturization will also lead to thefact that some of the clumsiness associated with existing largersystems can be replaced with, perhaps, clusters of smaller computersworking together to achieve the power of what today's large systemscan do.  So, as I said, the computing power as we know it is goingto get better.  
 We also can anticipate that storage capacity is going to increase. Again, estimates are that 2½" magnetic disks will costless than five cents.  A megabyte can hold 200/bytes of information;that is equivalent to about 10 hours of video or 20,000 books. So, we have this capacity now to store a lot more information. And, when you add to that the advances that are being made indata-compression technologies, that again provides another mechanismfor getting more and more information in smaller spaces.  Thatalso relates to the growth in the network bandwidth.  In a recentarticle in *Science Magazine* where scientists were askedto look to the future and make projections across all fields ofscience, William Brinkman from Bell Labs projected that transmissionof a terabit per second over a single fiber would be accomplishedby the year 2000.  So, we are seeing tremendous growth in termsof bandwidth capacity becoming available.  
 And, it is not just the telecommunication lines themselves. Additionally, the other components, like the switching technology,the routers, and all of the other elements of the network, arebecoming more sophisticated, adding to the overall capacity ofthe network.
 One of the other certain trends that we can count on is interconnectivity. We see linkages between all kinds of technologies; true multimediain terms of different formats being brought together.  Probably,the most visible example we have of great interconnectivity isthe Internet.  The Internet is growing at an incredible rate andis anticipated to continue to grow at a large rate.
 The software involved is becoming much more sophisticated.  Weare getting greater ability to do more kinds of tasks; more integrationof different kinds of functions.  As a result, you get softwarethat can do multiple things rather than having to get differentsoftware packages.  And, increasingly user-friendliness capabilityhas added tremendously in terms of the number of people that canuse the system.
 And, of course, linked to all of this is the greater amount ofdata.  And, I will use the word 'data' for now rather than 'information,'or, particularly, 'knowledge."  Everybody is a publishertoday, or can be.  Information is increasingly created in digitalform.  Actually, Paul Peters and I were in a meeting last weekwhere he made an interesting statement trying to identify differencesin terms of the kind of digital data that we are dealing with. In many cases, when people talk about digital libraries, theyare really talking about taking things that have a paper analogand digitizing them.  And, that becomes their digital library. In some cases, I think what people are talking about is thatwe are creating information in digital formats, but we are stilltalking about primarily text.  I know this from our experienceat CRS.  All of our analysts have PCs on their desks and theysit there and develop their reports.  When that report is done,it is already in digital form; we do not have to digitize it. So, there is that aspect of it, as well. 
 But, thirdly, there are new and unique digital objects that arebeing created.  The National Library of Medicine (NLM) has beencreating a digital human body.  You may have seen the digitalfrog on the Internet.  But, these are new kinds of objects thatdo not have a paper analog.  They do not have the same kind ofattributes, and that, in and of itself, creates a lot of interestingchallenges and opportunities, as well.
 But what all of these trends also reflect is a greater distributedcapacity.  People have the ability to do things in a much moredistributed mode, which means you have opportunities, for example,to create virtual libraries, virtual institutions, virtual meetings,and so forth.  And, as I said, it has a lot of implications interms of the whole globalization of activity.
 It also has another implication that I deal with everyday; thatis, the pace is getting faster all the time.  We are getting moreinformation, and it is coming in faster.  We have more channelsof information.  Everyday when you come in you have to check yourvoice mail, your paper mail, your e-mail, and do not forget, youstill have to check in with the person sitting next to you tofind out what is really going on.  We have all of these channelsof information opening up to us, and in a sense what has happenedis that we have less time to process that information and to transformit in ways that are important.  
 I would like now to talk about what the implications are forthese kinds of trends.  I think that just simply looking at thegrowth rate of the technology does not really tell the whole story. There have been a lot of different prognoses about what the indicationswill be.  I do not know how many of you remember the 'PaperlessOffice' of the future.  There actually was a model here in Washington,DC, several years ago.  Well, I can go into any office in CRS,and I can tell you, there is no such thing as a 'paperless office'. In fact, it is getting worse and worse and worse all the time. Concepts of the totally electronic library are interesting, andI think there are clearly lots of opportunities to take advantageof the technology.  But, I think, if we are talking about thecoming five years, we still have to think in context of a mixedenvironment, and that, to me, is really the challenge.  How doyou integrate some of the traditional formats with the electronicformats?  Where do you make your choices?  I know myself, as aperson who still does some research and as someone who has responsibilityfor managing a group of researchers, I am always trying to makedecisions and asking the questions:  Should we get this informationon a CD ROM?  Should I get it through an online subscription? Should I get it in paper?  What is going to work best for theparticular need and for the particular kind of information thatit is?  I think that it is a real challenge to try to figure outhow to integrate and how to make use of the different formatsin creating new information.  
 It also raises interesting thoughts about new opportunities fornew types of documents.  For example, at CRS we do an "IssueBrief" which gives a synopsis of key issues before Congress,and pending legislation, and presents a brief analysis of it. We have it available in the paper format and you can also getit by dialing into our online system.  So, we have taken it tothat next step.  But, the reality is, why should I not be doingan issue brief that has in it a video clip, that has in it a segmentof the speech that the President or the Speaker has made or thathas in it, perhaps, in a dynamic way,  some way of seeing differentmodels manipulated.  You can begin to think about possibilitiesfor creating whole new kinds of documents.  
 Part of the problem is that most of the analysts at CRS are notfresh out of school (I will put it kindly that way), and mostof us think in terms of paper documents.  I think there is somethingto be said about new ways of thinking and approaching how we acquireinformation.  We are getting better at acquiring information inelectronic formats, but we have a long way to go before we startthinking in a truly multimedia way.  How do we truly develop thesenew kinds of information products that can transfer informationin really creative ways?
 Another thing that I think is interesting to look at is thatthat many of these new opportunities in technologies are reallya double-edged sword.  There was an interesting article in thepaper yesterday about people who travel all the time for a living. It made the interesting comment that the technology actuallymakes it possible for them to travel more because they take theiroffice with them.  It is portable.  They are able to take theirfax machine and their PC and their cellular telephone and theyare able to literally go all over the place and take their officewith them.  This gives them a lot of mobility to then meet withpeople face-to-face which they find is the most important thing,after all.
 Now, on the other hand, you have the growth of video-conferencingactivities, and the concept that we do not have to travel as muchand can use the technology instead.  But, the article was an interestingway of talking about what the impact might be from both ends. And, interestingly, one of the examples used was Vint Cerf, whomyou all know is President of the Internet Society, who apparentlyspends every day on the road.
 I am always looking at how we are using the technology.  By andlarge, a lot of it is still focused on personal communication. When they developed the original ARPANET, the idea was to enablecomputers to talk to one another.  But what happened was thatyou had all of these scientists and engineers sending e-mail backand forth and the major use became e-mail.  It is interestingto look at some of the statistics on things like America Onlineand CompuServe in terms of how much are people using it for dataacquisition and how much people are using it to communicate withother people.  A lot of the technology is to fundamentally communicatewith other people.
 One of the other things that is happening is that we are runningup against a situation where people are deciding that the gloriesof the information superhighway might not be so glorious afterall; maybe we oversold it.  I must say that I find this interesting. Cliff Stoll has gotten a lot of publicity recently for sayingthat there is more to life than spending your life online.  Which,to me, seems pretty obvious from the start.  I think he has somethinglike 12 e-mail accounts, and that says something.  There are peoplewho are now saying, "This is not the answer.  This reallyis not the whole approach to life."  We have to rethink themore appropriate role of technology within the context of otheractivities.  
 I used to be able to read the newspaper and not think about work. That has changed.  You cannot read the newspaper anymore withoutinformation technology being in the forefront.  There was an articleyesterday about the shake-up in the CD-ROM business and, indeed,how a lot of these initial ventures into new technologies do notturn out to be as easy to market as people anticipated.  
 I think that while there are a lot of long-term growth ratesthat have a lot of potential, that many people are going to failin the process of commercializing them for a lot of differentreasons.  For example, standards were mentioned as being a keyproblem. I think that points to a more general problem, whichone of the participants raised as we initially went around theroom introducing ourselves, and that is, the issue of qualityversus quantity.  There is a lot of stuff out there and for thoseof us who do get online and search, there is a lot of not veryuseful information out there.  I think the information-glut problemis a real problem.  More and more, I find that when I get onlineand know exactly what it is I want, I can find it.  But, if Ijust want general information, I am more likely to go a differentdirection.  All of us have seen the very fancy Web-Home pageswhere there is really nothing behind them; a lot of good graphicsthat take forever to get on your screen.  There is much frustrationwhen you have sat there and had it finally come on screen, andthen there is nothing very useful in the way of information. I think that we have a way to go in terms of seeing that transitiontake place.  
 For all of these reasons, I think that there is a unique opportunityfor people in the library and information science community toreally be leaders.  That is because finding useful information,verifying what is real and accurate, having people who are knowledgenavigators, being able to index large volumes of material, providingsome sort of peer review and synthesis kinds of functions - allof the traditional library functions married to the capabilitiesof the technologies - offer real potential.  To rely solely onthe technology without bringing those skills and that experienceto bear, means that we will lose out a lot.  And, there will bea lot of disappointed people who sign on and do not get very much. Or many will find that it is just too much to try to tackle thisnew world.  If we can bring these skills to bear, then I thinkthere are real opportunities here for realizing much of the potentialof this information infrastructure; potential that can be realizedfor large segments of society.
 Finally, I would like to say that when we talk about how varioustechnologies might become widely integrated in society, one ofthe key components, of course, is the various policy issues. Right now on the Hill, there are a number of these being debatedin various ways.  Obviously the regulatory regime for the telecommunicationsindustry is front and center on Capitol Hill.  There is pendinglegislation in the Senate, with the expectation that it will beconsidered on the floor this month.  There is legislation nowon the House side as well.  So, you have a lot of legislativeactivity.  At the same time, of course, as has been the case inthe telecommunications area for a long time, no one is waitingfor Congress in this area and the courts are proceeding to makedeterminations and the FCC is moving ahead, as well.  
 Other key issues include the role of government.  What is thegovernment's role in terms of providing incentives; in terms ofbeing a safety net?  What about education and technical literacy? How do we assure that there is some kind of universal access? Intellectual property is a key issue that needs to be dealt with. Privacy:  how much are we willing to give up, and for what? Security is clearly still a key problem.  The encryption debatecontinues.  The issue of law enforcement now has become more visibleagain because of the recent tragedy in Oklahoma City.  The issueincludes using the Internet for finding out how to build a bombor for hate groups communicating.  Pornography is another issuethat is being debated on the Hill.  All of these policy debateswill certainly play a part in seeing how the technology proceedsin terms of its acceptance throughout society.
General Discussion
11:00 - 11:30 a.m.
**DAVID BOESEL**:  We have had three very good presentations. There are lots of ideas and lots of policy issues that we willwant to discuss.
 Let me just start with a few comments about the presentationsand a few questions.  These are not questions that I am presentingto the presenters, rather they are questions that I am throwingout for your consideration and as something to think about inframing your own questions.
 Gail spoke about the economy and made some projections for thenext five years.  It was, generally, an optimistic forecast. One, that there is gradually expanding of the economy that maybe followed by a 'soft recession.'  At the same time, there areimportant questions of income distribution and what is happeningto that distribution in this country.  I think those are relatedto broader economic issues.  We have seen a good deal of economicchange and even dislocation in the last decade, much of it relatedto globalization.  
 Robert Wright has referred to what he calls the 'anxious classes'- people who are being displaced or feel they are in danger ofbeing displaced:  Economically, we see sort of an extreme manifestationof the political views of the 'anxious classes' in the militias. We need more information on these groups.  But, I am beginningto get the impression that they are composed of displaced farmers,mechanics, industrial workers, certain small businessmen whosebusinesses are threatened by global forces that are difficultto understand.  What Robert Wright called the 'anxious classes'take a generally dim view of government, of welfare, of socialexpenditures of one kind or another.  Those expenditures mightinclude the expenditures for libraries and library programs.
 Royal mentioned the aging of the population as a major factorin changes that are occurring.  Clearly, that is taking placeand it has a major role in the debate over health care.  In talkingabout generational equity, Royal could be referring to what maybe the coming contest for federal dollars for health care, onthe one hand, and education and younger people, on the other. And there may be implications there for libraries, as well aspublic expenditure and support for libraries.  
 On technology, Jane has mentioned the growth of interconnectivityand the globalization of technology.  One issue that seems tobe very important here - it will be a familiar issue to many ofyou - is the access by technology to the globalized network. I think we must consider what the role of libraries should bein this area.  I am sure that Betty Turock is very engaged inthat issue right now.
 So, with that, let me ask for comments, questions, and discussion. The Forum is open for discussion for one-half hour, or so.
**BETTY TUROCK:**  One of the issues that I think implicit on all ofour agendas when we talk about changes in library and informationservices and the data we need to collect is that our Nation isbecoming more and more diverse.  What data on diversity will weneed to design and implement services in 2001, and, particularly,how does that data figure into the preparation of libraries foran electronic future?
**P. ROYAL SHIPP:**  One of the issues that seems to resonatein terms of the last election had to do with immigration policy,and there is legislation being discussed on that and it is oneof those areas where the issue is very political.  Earlier I mentionedsome ideas about what politics is.  One of the things that politicsis about, is about winning, of course.  
 I was talking with someone over the weekend (this is a personwho has been involved in the Senate for many years) and he wascommenting that he had never seen a time when debates were moredivisive and partisan than they are now.  I expect immigrationpolicy will get caught in that debate.  I do not really have anythingto add about the need for data for libraries.  Jane, could youcomment on that?
**JANE BORTNICK GRIFFITH:**  Actually, I think that technologyprovides some opportunities to acquire, in a distributed fashion,information from different communities that can be accessed bybroader groups of people.  From that standpoint, I think thereare possibilities now to not simply rely on traditional collectionsof materials but to augment those with other kinds of information. Again, in different cultures you may have, not so much the writtenword, but other visual kinds of materials that may be equallyas important, but the technology provides some opportunities there,as well.
 There are certainly some challenges, but there is much that isbeing developed technologically that can provide avenues for addressinga variety of languages simultaneously so that users with differentlanguage backgrounds can access materials.  I think it is a challengethat will require some positive action; it is not going to happenon its own.  There has to be acknowledgment - whether it is atthe state level, local level, and so forth., to make the investmentto ensure that the diverse populations have access to importantmaterials and that that information is shared.  In fact, the advantagesof having a multicultural society are that you have an awarenessof the various benefits from these different cultures.  And, thetechnology can provide an opportunity for doing this.  But, Ido not think it will happen automatically; it will require specificaction.  
**PAUL EVAN PETERS:**  Would you say more about currency becauseacademic and research libraries are very sensitive to currencyfluctuations and the value of the U.S. dollar.  That said, ithas been very hard to understand, in traditional terms, why theU.S. currency is ravaging library budgets yet once again.  And,on the other side of it, that is closer to the action agenda,what can we do with data that will allow library planners whoare thinking about acquisition budgets over multiyear timeframesto look at indicators that would help them do a better job inanticipating fluctuation?  What was that nice, elegant term youused - 'supply shock?'  For certain kind of libraries, we arein a 'supply shock' period, and it seems to be related to currency.
**GAIL MAKINEN:**  I do not have a ready answer to your questionsimply because I do not know why the dollar fluctuates as it doesover time.  I think the long run trend for the dollar is to depreciate- that is to become cheaper in terms of foreign currency whichis going to increase your budgetary costs.  That is because overthe last ten years the United States has borrowed abroad morethan a trillion dollars.  More than a trillion dollars has comeinto this country in the form of foreign capital, and that amounthas to be serviced.   
 To give you some feel for what this costs:  in the early 1980's,our net earnings abroad on our foreign investments - were about$30 billion.  In 1995, we will pay out money to foreigners, net. So, there has been a shift of more than $30 billion in just interestand dividends, alone.  Well, in order to pay out that money, wehave to earn more in exports.  That means that the dollar, inthe long run, will depreciate.  And, we are still importing foreigncapital at the rate of approximately $200 billion per year.  So,the long-run trend for the dollar is downhill.  That is as closeas I can really come.   
 Actually, if you take a look at the fluctuations in the valueof the dollar over the last five years, there has not been a trend;it has gone up and down.  If you look at the Federal Reserve ForeignExchange Index , you will see that, basically, over the last fiveyears, there has been no trend.  For example, from the middlepoint of last year to about right now, the dollar has fallen invalue about 20 percent.  Between 1991 and 1992, it fell more than20 percent.  Then, however, it recovered all of the lost ground. My advice is:  Buy your subscriptions at the right time!  (Laughter)
 The basic long-run trend for the dollar has got to be in thedownhill direction.  We have been very fortunate to have beenable to borrow as heavily as we have been over the years.  Ifwe had not borrowed, interest rates in this country would be muchhigher than they are.  Rather than having a foreign-trade deficit,we would have had less investment expenditures and a lower rateof growth.
**PAUL EVAN PETERS:**  I am eager to ask Gail a question ofclarification.  
 You characterized the current cycle as middle-aged.  But, ifI understood what you told us, it is middle-aged against the longestever.  If we are 50 months into it, and 106 is the longest ever,and we are half-way through the longest ever, what percentageof the way through are we in the median cycle?
**GAIL MAKINEN:**  The mean length for all nine cyclesis 50 months, so we are at the mean right now.  I do not knowabout the median, but we are at the mean right now.
**PAUL EVAN PETERS:**  So, without creating a panic, it couldbe argued that if we are at 50 months - which is the mean - thenwe are at old-age.
**GAIL MAKINEN:**  You might look at it thatway.  This expansion started slowly.  It has only really gottenunderway for about seven quarters now, but there is no reasonwhy it cannot continue.  The biggest thing we have going for usis a fairly low inflation rate.  Usually that is the thing thatgets us off track all the time.  The inflation rate has been low,and it has been low since the expansion began.  And, it does notseem to be accelerating.  For example, the March number for theComprehensive Wage Index, which is a big indicator of future inflation,was practically the lowest in 20 years.  That is the good thinggoing for us.  If we have a recession, it will be because policymade a mistake, but it can be easily reversed.  This time we wouldnot have to wait until the inflation rate falls before we reversepolicy.  The inflation rate is low, and we can reverse quickly.
**DAVID BOESEL**:  Thank you.  Since we are talking about economicsand the economy, are there further comments on that subject?
**JOEY RODGER:**  I guess this question is related to economics. Do you see that one of the things that is happening with theanti-government movement in this country is the pressure againstusing federal, state, and local funds to fulfill social needs? 
 I would like to ask all three of you to comment on the role ofthe private sector.  Public libraries are now primarily supportedby public sector money.  I do not think that is the way it willcontinue.  My question is, "What services besides librariesare going to have to make substantial changes from being consideredtotally funded by the public sector to much greater private sectorsupport?"
**GAIL MAKINEN:**  I will pass this on since I do not havea lot of information in this area.  But what I do have is a confusionin the public minds about what it means to privatize functions,that is, in some particular cases, a privatizing function meansthat the private sector does it but the federal government paysfor it.  
 That is what some people mean by privatizing.  All they wantto do is contract it out, but the government still pays for it. It is a line-item in the budget.  It does not decrease the portionof the public expenditures.  You mean that you want to totallyprivatize.  If it were a formerly a public function, you thinkit should be totally privatized?
**JOEY RODGER:**  No.  I am talking about partnership responsibilityto make sure that people living in America have the informationresources they need when they need them and you can do that indirectlythrough pushing the money through your taxing structure and thenback into the economy through publicly funded institutions.  Isimply do not think that is going to be viable much longer becausethe pressure on that system is going to be too great once thefederal cut-backs really start taking effect.  I think we haveto look for substantially different kinds of models.  
**JANE BORTNICK GRIFFITH:**  There has certainly been muchdiscussion about this in the research and development area, therole of the federal government in funding research and development,what areas the government decides to move out of, and how theywant to provide incentives for the public sector to get more involved. For example, if the federal government decides to no longer fundresearch facilities on university campuses - how do you get theprivate sector to invest in that?  
 One approach, which is currently being suggested, particularlyby the Chair of the House Science Committee, is that you use taxcredits or other types of tax incentives, to get the private sectorto make investments.  In other words, if a company will decideto build a research facility on a campus that they would get certaintax incentives for that.  In addition, they get a guaranteed accessto that facility which they share with the university.  So, Ithink, that  certainly in the research area there is a lot ofdiscussion about what kind of models, different from some of thecurrent federal funding models, might work and what are the prosand cons, because these ideas need a lot of analysis includinglooking at the pros, cons, and opportunities.
**GAIL MAKINEN:**  Let me add one point to that statement. The problem with privatizing a lot of these functions is simplythat the private sector simply cannot capture the rewards forit all.  That is why the government has to be in the picture. That is, if a private company develops a technology and thattechnology is not patentable, or all of it is not patentable,everyone else has access to it.  And, as a result, they do notreap the rewards from it.  There is not any way to simply do that. And, for that reason, we in the economics profession, refer tothese as sort of 'externalities.'  And, these 'externalities'cannot be captured by the private sector; hence, I think therewill always be a role for government, whether it realizes it ornot.  It has to be in the picture here; research and developmentin particular.  
 The model that Jane was talking about is a tax-credit subsidy. And, that still involves the government and it still is in thebudget picture.  Those subsidies have to be paid, whether theyare paid through the expenditure side of the budget or throughthe text side of the budget, that is a subsidy being paid to privatebusiness, so there is still going to be an effect on the federalbudget.  
 The basic reason why there is a role for the federal government,and, I think, for libraries in particular, is that a lot of thisstuff cannot be captured by the private sector totally, and sothe government has to subsidize this or else it will not be done. 
**DAVID BOESEL:**  Thank you.  NCLIS Chairperson Simon hasa comment.
**JEANNE HURLEY SIMON:**  Last week, the House and the Senatecame out with budget resolutions and they both project a balancedbudget by the year 2002.  If, by some weird chance, this shouldhappen, would your predictions be a little more rosy?
**GAIL MAKINEN:**  No, they would be a little less rosy becausethat will have a negative effect on total aggregate demand.  Partof it will be offset because as the federal government borrowsless in financial markets, the interest rate will fall.  And,part of those funds that would have gone to the federal governmentwill then go to the private sector.  But it will not offset ittotally, which means that the Federal Reserve will have to stepin and be a little more accommodating.  I think Mr. Greenspanhas indicated that if the budget is, in fact, balanced, he willaccommodate those demands so that you can smooth out the businesscycle a little more.
 But, clearly, this will be a decrease of about $200 billion ayear in an economy that is now, roughly, a little over $5 trillion. So, we are still dealing with something that can have a substantialeffect on aggregate demand and GNP growth.  What will have tohappen is that the Federal Reserve accommodates to some of this.
**SUSAN MARTIN:**  I have a comment and a question.  The commentis that in meetings like this where there are so many people whoare solidly in the public sector - and some of us go back andforth between publicly funded and privately funded - there isa very small number of people who are in the so-called "privatesector," so we have a tendency to talk to ourselves and saythings that we all want to hear.  I am very concerned that thereis not enough representation from the private sector to gathera real sense of what their reaction and/or response would be.
 Now my question.  I appreciated the presentations, and I am lookingat the draft questions for the focus groups.  I am acutely awarethat we only have a few minutes in a plenary session before wego into focus groups, which will continue tomorrow morning.  Iwould like very much to hear what meeting organizers think weshould focus on this afternoon and tomorrow morning to most effectivelyuse the time to come out with a result, to come out doing something. I may be in the minority, but I am not clear on exactly whatwe are to do.  On what do we focus our action items?  For example,how do we do this so that what we discuss will work?
**JOHN LORENZ:**  I think Neal Kaske, chair of your focus group,will be able to brief you on the discussion held by the moderatorsand recorders earlier this morning.
**EMERSON ELLIOTT:**  This is an extension of some of the questionsthat have been raised, and I think it is one that cuts acrossall three of the speakers this morning.  Jane has made the pointthat not only is there an enormous increase in the amount of informationbut that also getting that information requires a great deal moresophistication.
 I would like to ask all three speakers if they have any morethoughts on the question of how people can effectively make useof what is there when, perhaps, not everyone has all of the sophistication. Is that going to have a consequence of age discrimination, educationalachievement discrimination, or another type of discriminationin society?
**JANE BORTNICK GRIFFITH:**  Even as we have someadvances in terms of user friendliness in software, I think, byand large, it does not meet what is required.  I think most peoplewho work with the technology will tell you that the major costsare not so much the hardware and the software but that the trainingand troubleshooting are ongoing costs that are very substantialin terms of bringing the technology into an organization.  Weare now expecting our CRS analysts to be able to explore the resourcesthat are available electronically as well as explore the resourcesthat they traditionally used in paper form, and that requiressome skills that many of them do not have and that we need todeal with.  When you take that and extend that to the generalpublic, you can certainly imagine that there is going to be alot of diversity in terms of the skill level involved.  I thinkthat is one place where the schools will come into play and linkagesbetween libraries and schools will be very critical to insuringthat:  (1) the people get the training that is required, and (2)that you have the staff that has the sophisticated capabilityavailable to assist people.
**JOHN LORENZ:**  Jane, can you give us your impression asto what degree the Congressional offices are now using the newtechnology?
**JANE BORTNICK GRIFFITH:**  It varies quite widely from someoffices who have their own Web Page and are very sophisticatedto other offices that have only dumb terminals.  They are attemptingnow to upgrade the capacity across the hill, but as you can imagine,each Congressional office is its own little fiefdom, and it hasits own characteristics.  But, there is certainly an interestin upgrading the capacity, making more information available,and getting everyone connected.  But, at this point, there isclearly a rather significant variation and much of it dependsupon the individual office having somebody who turns out to beinterested or having the expertise to take the lead and to bringthe rest of the office up to speed.
**NEAL KASKE:**  I have a question about the two kinds of literacy- the kind we think of basically and information literacy.  Iwonder if the three panelists can give us current informationon the level of basic literacy and what skills one needs to beinformation literate.
**GAIL MAKINEN:**  I want to comment briefly, not on Neal'squestion, but on the prior question asked.  Whether you folksdo anything or not, there is a financial incentive for peoplein the marketplace to know how to access these systems.  The U.S.participates in international trade on the basis of human capital,basically.  Education, that is the big thing that we export, inone form or the other, both physical capital and human capital. Part of the reason why the income distribution has been becomingso skewed in recent years is because of international trade. Our markets are far more open in 1995 than they were in 1980. We exported probably twice the amount of our GDP in 1990 thanwe did even 15 years ago.  Well, when we export goods and services,we are exporting the resources that we have in this country. One of the resources that we export is education, in one formor another.  It is in the form of management; it is in the formof skilled labor.  It is, basically, a human capital form.  Thatis the incentive for the people at the bottom-end of the incomedistribution to hustle.  A friend of mine refers to this as, "Theultimate revenge of the Nerds."  That is, it is the Nerdyfolks that are doing well in the marketplace because they knowhow to operate all of these systems.  And, it is soon going todawn on some other folks that they have to become a little moreNerdy, and you folks are going to be there to supply a lot ofthe information for them.
**DAVID BOESEL:**  That is a very important observation.  Neal,would you like to repeat your question or comment?
**NEAL KASKE:**  It was about the level of literacy in thecountry, and also about information literacy.  Obviously, to usethese kinds of tools you have to be a little Nerdy.
**DAVID BOESEL**:  So, in effect, your question was addressed.
**BARBARA HUMES:**  Royal spoke a bit about the social conservativemovement, and Jane spoke about the broad capabilities of technology. Now, when we throw those two together in a mix, I am wonderingwhether libraries will probably experience even stronger attackson intellectual freedom.  We would want to know what librariansneed to know and what data we need to prepare for this.  I waswondering what your drumbeats are on the notion of intellectualfreedom vis-a-vis the social conservative movement and the broadtechnology that we have at our fingertips.  What do you all seeas possibly happening?
**P. ROYAL SHIPP:**  I will try to answer, and perhaps Janewill, too.  It seems to me that questions of freedom of informationand freedom of speech have been issues for as long as we havehad a country.  The changes in technology do not change this verymuch.  It is a question of organization.  The Christian Coalitionand other groups are very well organized and very well focused. There has always been a debate about freedom of information andfreedom of speech in this country.  It has come up, of course,in the context of things that Jane mentioned earlier, for example,access to the Internet and the talk show hosts.  But I do notsee anything different in that.
**JANE BORTNICK GRIFFITH:**  I think there are people who believethat we need to revisit some of those principles in the contextof a 'wired society.'  Just last week, there were hearings overin the Senate Judiciary Committee, as I mentioned, about the useof the Internet and the terrorist-types of activities.  I thinkthat there will clearly be an emerging debate here that will requirea lot of input from people who can provide perspective on howthe electronic environment is the same in many respects in termsof fundamental principles, but may be different in other respects. There needs to be more analysis on how to apply those principleswithin the context of the electronic environment.
**LAURA BREEDEN:**  This is partially in response to a question that was raised. I think one of the most important things that we can focus onthis afternoon - and it has been touched on in a number of theseremarks - is, "What is an appropriate role for the publicinstitution?"  And, that includes the public library, thepublic school, and the public university (many of which are representedhere).  Some of those issues may be ideological, but someone spokevery eloquently to the need for data.  If you are going to convincethe people who control the purse strings - whether it is the schoolboard, the University Board of Trustees, the state legislature,or the city council - that public institutions are worth investingin, then you need a rationale that includes some data to backup the rationale.  I would encourage the groups represented hereto develop the needed rationale and because I think that is oneof the fundamental needs.  Right now, the country is going througha very critical reexamination of the role of public institutions,including the federal government and including all of these symbolsof our government, such as libraries, schools, and universities.
**BABETTE "BABS" PITT:**  I have a question.  Maybeit is because of my naivete or maybe its is because I sometimeswork with 15 classes a day, but frequently I have to fill outforms, and sometimes it is for the statistics that people collect. I know where the forms go on my desk; they go to the bottom ofmy pile because I am too busy teaching and managing to stop andfill out the forms.  I know, here, that you see the importanceof collecting these statistics, but in education (and maybe inthe libraries) it is very hard measuring a lot of immeasurablesand intangibles.  Measuring education is not like measuring consumablegoods or other things.  I think it needs to be easier to collectstatistics or, perhaps, we need better training in collectingand reporting.  Then, at least, we can see report on results. 
 Unless we have education, access will not be very important. We are getting to be more and more "haves" and "havenots" when two and three-year olds are growing up with computers,and, then, we have children who do not see a computer until theyget to school, if they are in a school that is lucky enough tohave computers.  Our diversity is growing, not only multiculturally,but within groups. 
**DAVID BOESEL:**  Do you think that information collectionis interfering with education?
**BABETTE "BABS" PITT:**  I do not think it is interfering,but I think the people who are in the trenches may not be thebest collectors.
**FRANK WITHROW:**  My question is to Jane.  You mentionedthat - for want of a better term there is a lot of 'junk' on theInternet.  Ray Kurzweil talked some about this when he was discussinglibraries, and he said that as we move to the 'digital world'everyone, in effect, can be a publisher.  One of the greatestthings about publishing in libraries is that we have editors whoscreen things out in scientific journals and we have peer review.  Do you see in the electronic world, in the Digital Library,new pathways that enable us to have some degree of accountability? If I go down to the library, and certainly to the Library ofCongress, I have some idea that a process is in place to preventme from receiving pure propaganda.  
 Another comment along these lines is related to the NicholasNegroponte's book, "Being Digital."  He views the libraryby saying, "We are in a world of bits, and not a world ofatoms."  And, that radically changes the way we store andretrieve information.  How will it all work out?
**JANE BORTNICK GRIFFITH:**  A number of ideas have been floatedaround regarding different ways to provide, in effect, peer reviewor some type of quality control.  For example, there have beenproposals that government agencies who provide information toothers, who then repackage or redistribute it, can have some sortof seal of approval that this is verified information.  Therehave been cases where professional societies have decided on whatthe mechanisms are to provide that kind of peer review onlineas compared to traditional ways.  There are certainly ways ofsaying this information has been reviewed by such and such organization,institution, or individual.  There are times when people do iton the basis of what they like.  In other words, there is somequality control in the sense of you distributing information anda lot of people like it and use it.  There are different mechanisms,it seems to me, that are going to be employed.  I think it isgoing to be a variety of things that people will use to do that. People will identify what information is fundamentally good informationto use.
 While there is a lot of junk out there, there is also a lot ofvery useful information.  We get many requests from Congress andin the last couple of days I, personally, answered two requestson the Internet and one using our Division's CD-ROM that savedme a lot of time.  There is some very useful information thathas certainly facilitated access to materials for people, likeme, who have to get access quickly.
**DENNIS REYNOLDS:**  I have a question for Gail about the1½ percent growth and productivity forecast.  Do these figurestake into account changes in multi-cultural demographics?  Dothey take into account changes in the technology and adaptingto technology among the work force, retraining, and keeping upto date with what seems like very fast changes?  Does the 1½percent forecast take such factors into account, or are they basedon historical factors - assuming nothing changes faster than ithas?
**GAIL MAKINEN:**  Basically historical.  The growth rate ofthe population comes from demographics.  The Census Bureau actuallymakes these forecasts, and that is where the growth rate of thelabor force comes from; you can tell how many people will become
18 in each of the years and enter the labor force.  
 The productivity numbers are very hard to come by; they are guesses. We used to have productivity at about 3 percent a year and around1993 the productivity rate dropped by ½ percent, and economistsstill cannot explain why it dropped, but it did.  So, the numberswe are looking at for the 1990's are guesses.  You must also rememberthat many of the changes being discussed are marginal changes,in the sense that we have a labor force now of more than 120 millionpeople.  There will be more than 120 million people working overthe course of the next five years, and the changes to this figurewill be quite small.  While the things you are talking about aregoing to be insignificant; they will be quite small relative tothe size that we are dealing with and probably not have much ofan affect.
**MARY LEVERING:**  I would like to add a note to your comments,Gail, and highlight some of the economic issues.  The total U.S.copyright industries are a critical component of the U.S. economy. They represent 5.6 percent of the U.S. Gross Domestic Product,and they employ more than 5.5 million people, roughly 4.8 percentof the U.S. work force.  Moreover, in a time of large trade deficits,the core copyright industries have extensive foreign sales.  Thesecore copyright industries (including newspapers and periodicals,book publishing and related industries, radio and television broadcasting,cable television, records and tapes, motion pictures, theatricalproductions, advertising and computer software and data processing)contributed at least $36.2 billion in foreign sales to the U.S.economy in 1991 and preliminary data indicated that foreign saleswould exceed $39.5 billion in 1992, according to an economic studyprepared in 1993 for the International Intellectual Property Alliance(IIPA).  [*Copyright Industries in the U.S. Economy:  1993 Perspective,* prepared for the International Intellectual Property Allianceby Stephen E. Siwek and Harold Furchtgott-Roth, Economists Incorporated,October 1993.]
 The Intellectual property protection of digital information ondistributed networks is exceedingly important to these industriesand to the economic well being of this country.  Their copyrightedworks - including text, video, films, publications, scientificand technical articles, popular reading materials, software, images- represent intellectual content for which protection is exceedinglyimportant.  Often, when you go to a homepage on the World WideWeb at this time, you will see nothing of substance behind it. It is a superficial presentation.  Rightsholders are incrediblyconcerned about mounting and giving general access to their valuableproperty on Internet without protections to insure authenticityand accuracy, and for the rightsholders to realize return on theirinvestment.  You alluded to that too, Gail.  It is extremely important. While rightsholders recognize that some may be inevitable, theywant to avoid wholesale losses.  It is a major disaster, for example,when commercially valuable software is mounted on a server andresults in a loss of hundreds of millions of dollars because ofpiracy.
 These issues are very important to libraries, as well.  How arelibraries going to balance the needs of these rightsholders tohave their material protected, at the same time made accessibleto users through library operations in a way that does not representmajor leakage?  This is an important issue that this group needsto address.
**GAIL MAKINEN:**  Let me add one statement.  Whatyou say is true, without a doubt.  In the major internationaltrade pacts that are negotiated, the important thing is intellectualproperty-right protection for American-produced output, whichare being pirated all over the world.  This is a very importantpart of the total export picture for the United States.  One ofthe important and difficult things to negotiate are the tradeprojections so that we could reap the rewards of U.S. output.
**MARY LEVERING:**  We are going to have to look at it in termsof libraries.  For example, how do you deal with electronic intellectualresources in ways that still provide protection and recompenseto the owners?  How are you going to deal with digital preservationand electronic distance learning?  How will libraries fulfilltheir functions in ways that avoid major leakage and piracy, butstill make the materials available?  These are all key issues.
**DAVID BOESEL**:  Thank you very much.  We could continuethis conversation for a very long time.  We do have lunch schedulednow.  We will reconvene in the focus group sessions at 1:30 p.m.
Luncheon Speaker:
**Ramsay Selden, DirectorState Education Assessment CenterCouncil of Chief State School Officers**
11:45 a.m. - 1:15 p.m.
*"Changes in Education:  1996-2001"*
**PAUL PLANCHON:**  Good afternoon.  I am Paul Planchon, AssociateCommissioner, National Center for Education Statistics.  It ismy pleasure to introduce our luncheon speaker today.  
 Ramsay Selden is the Director of the State Education AssessmentCenter at the Council of Chief State School Officers.  The Centerleads efforts by states individually and collectively to enhancethe breadth, quality, and comparability of information about educationand to improve the use of that information by educators, educationalpolicy makers, and the public.  The Center conducts projects todevelop the consensus frameworks for the state-by-state testingof the national assessment of educational progress.  It encouragesthe establishment of standards for American education so theseassessment programs can be anchored on fundamental societal judgmentsof what students ought to learn.  The Center also conducts projectsto improve statistics and other indicators of how well the schoolsystems are doing in preparing students.
 Prior to joining the Council, Dr. Selden worked at the NationalInstitute of Education (NIE).  At NIE, he directed research programson reading, literacy, and education.  Dr. Selden completed hisPh.D. in education at the University of Virginia and serves asan Adjunct Professor at the American University. 
 It gives me great pleasure to present to you Dr. Ramsay Selden.
**RAMSAY SELDEN:**  It is nice to be introduced by a good andwonderful colleague like Paul.  Thank you.
 It is a pleasure for me to be with this group today.  Statisticsis the one sector in education and public service that I havenot had an opportunity to work with.  This is a good opportunityfor me to think about the issues affecting your field and to geta sense of what they are and how they play out. 
 In my comments this afternoon I would like to do two things. One is to try to make some projections on what is going on ineducation over the next five years, as the theme of your Forumsuggests.  Secondly, I would like to identify and talk with youabout some issues which I think need to be worked out over thenext five years in order for education to move collectively andconstructively forward and for reform to be truly accomplished. I hope I can get through all of that briefly enough to allowtime for questions and interaction.
 First of all I would like to speak to projections regarding whereeducation is going in the next five years.  I must say I foundthis exercise interesting.  Five years is an interesting timeframe. I am sure you have been talking about that in your other sessionstoday, as well.  Usually when someone asks you to project thefuture, it is longer term than that - 15 or 20 years.  What isinteresting about five years is that it is short enough to bereally concrete.  You can almost take the job seriously becausewithin the next five years, you can almost figure out what isgoing to happen.  If you are projecting for 10, 15, or 20 years,you can almost assume that things are going to be different whenyou get there.  I am not familiar with the work of futurists,but when you are working on projecting a five-year time framewhat is interesting how useful a resource it is.  It forces youto think about where you are now, and to figure out what reasonableprojections are, or actual projections from the current conditions. I guess what I am trying to say is that it gives you a kind ofempirical base for making those projections.  Whereas, in thelonger term, probably, you would not attempt to use an empiricalbase.
 I am going to concentrate my comments on projections in two areas,assuming that you have received good insights on population trends,social changes, and analysis and projections on services.  I wouldlike to look at the specific issues of budget funding, programrelationships, and/or organization and consolidation, becauseI think they are hot and timely right now.  
 First, *budget.*  I think the overriding and overwhelmingevent affecting our view of the next five years in education isthe attempt to balance the federal budget by the year 2002.  Thathas to be an all-consuming fact and factor to ponder and to workwith in making projections.  I think that there is a great likelihoodthat attempts will be made to try to put together a federal budgetwhich, over the next several years, works toward balance by theyear 2002.  There are just too many strong pressures driving thingsin that direction.  There are commitments by the Republicans todo it, and they have made a commitment to the American publicto balance the federal budget.  It is difficult for the Democratsto very actively or seriously counteract the basic concept ofworking toward a balanced budget. 
 I think there will be a lot of discussion and a lot of politicaleffort around how the budget is cut and *how* it isconfigured.  I would predict that there will be some trade-offsbetween Defense and other areas, which has not yet become an issue. To me, if the Democrats are going to do anything in this effortto reduce the budget, they are going to have to deal with therelative balance between Defense and other areas, which I thinkthey have not done yet.  The Republicans, I think, have done somethingthat many of us wondered if they would be able to do and thatis, at least for starters, to come forward with some suggestionsfor areas like reducing future Medicaid and Medicare costs.  And,this has all happened within the last few days and it is changingour context rather dramatically. I would like now to project forwardin terms of budget and funding for the next five years.  I think,first of all, that we can certainly anticipate for the next yearor two nothing more than level funding.  We have been fortunatethat education statistics and assessment funding has been maintainedand actually increased while there have been efforts to reducethe overall federal budget.  So, within the area of educationwhere things have been problematical, statistical support andassessment have been supported well.  It would seem to me thatgiven the kind of circumstances that we are seeing, we are ata minimum for the next year and, perhaps, second year out, lookingat level funding.  Beyond that, as the efforts to balance thingsby 2002 get worked out and come into play, I think that we arefacing substantial cutbacks in virtually every domestic program. I think we can hope that the load is spread and that educationand libraries and other services are not dramatically over-cutin terms of their suffering.  But, if you think through what isrequired to lower the U.S. budget to the extent that will balanceit in, essentially, six years, we are looking at very, very substantiallimitations in funding and resources and for those to kick-infairly quickly, probably within the second or third year out. And, it will be with us for some time as we take up the slack.
 Now, what is going to happen as a result, I do not know.  Already,there is beginning to be tension between those who have been drivingto cut the budget and those who think the economy was showingsigns of growth and health, and I think that if we had stayedon course, we could have maintained a reasonable, moderately-growingeconomy without going through drastic cuts, like trying to balancethe budget but the year 2002.  I think there will be a policydebate about whether or not to cut things to that extent.  
 Let me now shift to the area of *consolidation* or *reorganization*****of education and other programs.  The big one whichis facing us in education is the prospect of having the U.S. Departmentof Education eliminated and being consolidated, most likely, withthe Labor Department in a federal reorganization.  For us, I thinkthere are three areas important to talk about if, in fact, thathappens:  (1) A thematic question of emphasis;
(2) What does this mean administratively?; and (3) What happensto the statistical programs, if this happens?  
 In the thematic area, the obvious question at issue is the positiveand negative potential consequences of a merger between the Departmentsof Education and Labor.  The advantages of such a merger are costsavings and efficiency.  And, with this merger, there is a potentialof a more productive relationship between education and labor. Hopefully, it would make possible better coordination of effortsprogrammatically and increase the potential that education wouldhave in pay-off, in terms of our labor force and productivity. There is a down-side in potentially having toomuch of a school-to-work focus.
 Administratively, huge questions remain regarding how the currentprograms administered by the two agencies would be handled.  Youcan expect there to be one set of administrative services -  contracting,personnel, planning - in contrast to two sets of services at present. All of that, I think, would have to have a cathartic effect asthey merge and centralize programs.
 In the statistical area some interesting and not necessarilycomforting possibilities are emerging.  One of the prospects,of course, would be if there were simply a merger between theDepartments of Labor and Education, you could work out some typeof relationship between the Bureau of Labor Statistics and thedata collections at the National Center for Education Statisticsand other Education programs.  
 That kind of merger creates an opportunity for putting solutionstogether in the most creative and productive way possible.  Thereare strengths and relationships in the two organizations thatcould be built upon and capitalized upon.  I think, again, thebig danger is that the statistical services in Education, whichhave been developed at the federal level in a way which servesthe education programs and community very well, will be sacrificedand their services to the program area of education would be diminished. The same probably applies to the Labor programs.  We need tobe careful if these two organizations are merged that the productiverelationship between the statistical programs and the sectorsthat they serve are not harmed or diminished.
 One particularly interesting concept, which Emerson Elliott hastalked about on several occasions, is the notion of a 'merger'of a lot of the federal data collection functions and agenciesinto one mega-statistical agency which would serve most of thegovernment.  This has been proposed by the Heritage Foundation,along with proposals for reorganization of the Departments.  That,of course, raises incredibly intriguing concepts, both negativeand positive.  Can you have a big centralized statistical agencythat meets its different sector functions well?  On the otherhand, the potential power and utility of centralizing some ofthe programs, expertise, and functions offers some tremendouspotential.
 At the federal level, the prospect of some type of redefinitionof the Department of Education and a merger with other agenciesis a huge part of the picture for the next five years.  What isgoing to happen?  How will it happen?  What will its effect beon programs?  
 Among the education issues that need to be worked out over thenext five years, I would put first and foremost resolving thefight over standards, in which we are currently embroiled. Thisis the fight over what are the national standards, for example,for the teaching of world and U.S. history.  Is the right processbeing used to generate these standards?  If we are going to havecontroversy around the standards, should we have standards developed? We must find ways to resolve this issue constructively becauseit is in a stage of virtual deadlock and confrontation, whichis most destructive in its nature.  This is a highly-publicizedissue, and neither side seems to be finding or offering solutions. We are watching states going through many of the same processesand encountering many of the same conflicts and issues.  I thinkthere are many positive ways of resolving these issues, if thesituations can be contained.  The focus must be on the real issuesinstead of allowing them to be politicized and allowing opportuniststo capitalize on, and stir up, the emotionality of these issues. Focusing on the questions of content and making sure that peopledeliberate those questions in terms of reality, as opposed towhat has happened over the last several months (for example, muchdialogue in the field and in the press revolving around hearsayand erroneous information).  This only serves to inflame peoples'reactions to rumors, as opposed to really looking at the standardsand conscientiously addressing whether or not they are movingin the right direction.  
 There is a huge danger now because of the controversy surroundingthe history standards and the enterprise of developing instructionalstandards could go by the boards.  I think we will need to letthe National Education Standards and Improvement Council (NESIC)go as a sacrificial lamb, or as a lightening rod, because it seemsto be the object of a lot of concern and antagonism.  At the sametime, we need to try to maintain the enterprise of developingand using standards in an uninstitutionalized, voluntary, butstill national and progressive, way.
 A second issue that needs to be worked out is the way in whichthe education system is oriented to the public, to its users,and to its communities.  It is clear that the public and constituenciesof services like education are demanding a new kind of attentionand relationship by these institutions.  I think it is going tobe absolutely essential for these enterprises to figure out howto be more engaged with, and responsive to, the communities thatthey serve.  For us, and for educational policy and administration,that probably means letting things become decentralized to a greaterdegree.  We have been thinking in terms of statewide solutions,statewide standards, frameworks, and policies in areas like teachingand assessment because we believed in statewide leadership anddirection.  And, it is also much neater from a policy standpointto operate things like assessment and accountability on a statewidebasis.  
 But, the public is telling us that they want more control, interaction,and determination of services at the local, grassroots level. I think we need to figure out the way to respond to that demandand to give them the control and engagement they want.  
 A third issue is what I call, 'school or instructional improvement.' This issue is the big, classic problem of how we really bringabout meaningful improvement in educational services, and by thatI mean, broadly, to include the role of libraries and the otherkinds of resources which need to be brought into play.  We havenot yet figured out how to improve the education system on a broadscale.  We have anecdotes, instances, pilot projects, and demonstrationswhich succeed.  But, for the vast majority of circumstances andsituations, we have not yet figured out how to really deliverimprovement in things like teacher knowledge and capability topervasively result in more effective instructional practices. 
 We do have some ideas about how to do this.  In the particulararea of professional development, we know that the old model,weekend workshops and dog-and-pony shows, do not work.  The modelthat will work is tough and complicated to implement.  I wouldargue that in areas of professional development, we know whatwe need to do, but we need to go through the tough work of doingit.  In professional development, it is things like creating long-termparticipatory support networks that give teachers access to knowinghow to do a better job of teaching in their field, giving themcommunication networks so they can interact with one another andsupport one another, and providing them with applicable modelsfor improving their practice.  Those kinds of networks, like theNational Writing Project or the California Project in Math, areviable ways for bringing about valid teacher improvement; theyhave been extremely limited in their participation.  What we needto do is figure out how to root out all the old activities andreplace them with new state and local activities that provideteachers with teacher development and other strategies which theyneed.
 Finally, over the next several years, we must deal with the *equity* problem of generating high expectations for allstudents and helping teachers and schools figure out ways of deliveringhigh-quality instruction that meets those expectations.  Justlook at the very demanding standards coming out in history, geography,and the arts.  These are very ambitious and demanding standards. If we had standards like those, it would go a long way in settinghigh expectations for disadvantaged kids.  In programs like ChapterI, you will see states and localities moving toward these typesof high standards for disadvantaged students, which will makea big difference.
 The last area I wish to talk about is *information systemstechnology, communication systems, and statistics*; all ofwhich are becoming interrelated and which we need to deal within an integrated way.  Some integration of these systems is alreadytaking place.  I think we have examples of school systems andother service providers who are beginning to use computers andcommunication technology to integrate their information supportingservices, their statistical collections and reporting, and soforth.  Much more of this needs to take place.  
 We are painfully aware of the limited extent to which state andlocal data collection programs are becoming computerized.  Thisis a sensitive issue because of the concerns about inappropriateroles and actions by the government.  So, it is not somethingwe can barge into lightly.  But, from our vantage point, informationand communication systems must be automated.  We are finding thatthe progress toward automation is taking place too slowly; itneeds to move much faster.  And, we have not quite figured outhow to do that.  
 In addition, we need to start figuring out how to do variouskinds of integration of our data collection and data use programs. One of these is within data bases.  In Education we havea tradition of having each sector with its little data base onits users, constituents, or participants, and this is just aninefficient way to go.  It does not allow you much power in termsof analyzing the data, and it is also inefficient to create aseparate data base for each program, whether it is special education,bilingual education, vocational education, library users, andso forth.  We need integrated data in a sense that indicates whatkinds of services the student has, what sort of needs the studenthas, and what sort of activities and instructional services theyare participating in.  We also need more integration among functions. We have figured out that relationships between the educationservices that kids get, their health care, welfare services beingprovided to the family, services being provided to students inhouseholds in a variety of functions need to be connected in termsof their information system.  
 We also need better integration among levels.  We have studentswho move from one level of service to the other and the data collectionprogram is isolated to that level; they basically start over. We pioneered with the postsecondary education community a transfersystem so that as students move from K through 12 to postsecondaryeducation, their data can be forwarded automatically with propersafeguards for security and privacy.  That is a huge leap forwardin terms of providing for integration among levels in the system.
 One of the things that is striking about the Internet phenomenonis that it is making telecommunications commonplace.  People likeme did not 'do' telecommunications until about a year ago, andthere are many people around just like me.  The advent of officenetworks and the explosion of the Internet and other kinds of
e-mail services is making electronic communication for averagecitizens a commonplace part of our lives.  We need to take advantageof that, not just in using the telecommunications as a way ofserving users, but also as a way of gathering information aboutservices being provided.  As we get communication with our clienteles,we ought to be able to build on our interactions with them togenerate much of the data that we need in order to support ourinstitutions and to report  to other levels in the system whatwe are doing.  A last issue that needs to be worked out over thenext several years is exactly how technology is going to be used. The widespread participation in computer-based telecommunicationscan be capitalized and drawn upon.
 In summary and in conclusion, my projections over the next fiveyears in education are not a particularly sanguine or rosy picture,but I sense that what you are trying to do is to look realisticallyat the years ahead from the perspective of this sector in education. I think there are some things that we can see coming, and thereare other questions and issues that we as an institution and asa field need to address, now more than ever, in areas such asequity.  
 I would like to take an opportunity to shift gears and recognizesomeone in our audience who has been a real servant in the vineyardsthat we have been talking about, and that is Emerson Elliott. Emerson has announced a desire to not seek another term as Commissionerof Education Statistics and to retire and create a time in hislife to do other things and to not deal with some of the pressuresthat he has dealt with over the last several years.
 I would like to highlight some of the ways in which Emerson hasmanifested his dedication. service, and accomplishments in thefield of Education Statistics.  First, everyone should know andunderstand how much he has worked to professionalize NCES as astatistical agency.  I think this is one thing, in particular,which Emerson has taken on.  It was direly needed when he tookover the agency at NCES, he has worked with Congress and has respondedto the National Academy of Sciences, and he has responded on hisown to truly enhance the professional caliber of NCES as an institution.
 Secondly, in his own accomplishments in educational statistics,I think you can see that he has extended the breadth, the substance,and the utility of a large number of the NCES programs.  I amparticularly familiar with NAEP, the international studies, theearly childhood survey, and other areas, including the libraryand postsecondary statistics, where he has worked to make theprograms more comprehensive and useful to people.  
 Emerson also deserves a great deal of credit for ensuring thateducational statistics do not become politicized, as is witnessedby his handling of programs and setting objectives in a neutraland even-handed tone and in his relationships with the Department,other statistical agencies, Congress, the field, and the press. He has always insisted that the statistical issues be decidedon an even-handed and professional basis, and not politically.
 The last thing I would like to say is that at a time when publicservice has been given as low a name and regard as it could bein our society, Emerson has epitomized the concept and meaningof being a public servant - dedicating himself for many yearsas a real servant in education.
 Emerson, congratulations and thank you.
(Applause)
Special Francis Keppel Award Presented To Emerson J. Elliott
**JEANNE HURLEY SIMON:**  Emerson, as a very small token ofappreciation for all you have done for education and educationstatistics, we present you with a Special Francis Keppel Awardfor the development of the NCES/NCLIS Library Statistics Program.
**EMERSON ELLIOTT:**  This is very, very special award.  Mydaughter knows how to work the abacus.
 I am not a speaker today, and I do not want to impose on youragenda.  I do, however, want to say a few words.  I am especiallypleased that Ramsay is here today because he allows me to makea point that I often feel about library statistics. 
 I have particularly enjoyed working on library statistics, inpart because everyone in library statistics is so energetic andso interested.  They were so pleased to have the public librarydata series re-begun, and it has been a real delight.  But, theother side of the point is one that I took a stab at mentioningthis morning, and it is one which I want to mention again followingRamsay's remarks.  That is, for a profession whose very essenceis information, there is a surprisingly small amount of informationabout it that is available.  I say that in contrast with the kindsof things that Ramsay has been talking about, in particular, elementaryand secondary education.  For years, policy makers have been askingincreasingly sophisticated questions; it is not any longer a questionof how much money is spent, how many teachers there are, how manystudents are enrolled.  But, rather, what are we actually gettingfor the public investment?  What is it that students are learning? What do they need to know?  All of these questions are part ofthe debate.
 My aspiration for the Forum as a part of the library arena isthe same thing - that you will begin to think of the more sophisticatedquestions that if we had answers for, would make it possible tocarry on a more sensible debate than what took place last weekwhen Mr. Gingrich had on his list the elimination of the libraryprograms.  But, you need to have that debate and you need thatdebate at all levels; the federal, state, local, and county levels. That is my aspiration, and I know that the leadership that wehave here can achieve it.  Thank you very much for this wonderfulrecognition.
(Applause)
General Information
Focus Groups
 For the remainder of the day, from 1:30 to 5:45 p.m., the firstand second Focus Group Sessions were held:  The five Focus GroupSessions are:
*National Level Changes*
Robert Willard - Moderator
Carrol Kindel - Recorder
*State and Library System Changes*
Joseph Shubert - Moderator
Mary Treacy - Recorder
*Public Library Changes*
Eleanor Jo Rodger - Moderator
Keith Curry Lance - Recorder
*School Library Media Center Changes*
Betty Marcoux - Moderator
Ann Weeks - Recorder
*Academic Library Changes*
Neal Kaske - Moderator
Mary Jo Lynch - Recorder
The discussion for each of the Focus Groups centered around thefollowing questions:- What changes will have taken place at national, state andtype of library levels by the year 2001?  (Develop as clear andgraphic descriptions as possible.) What specific premises (for example, economic, demographic,social, technological, educational, and political) were appliedin arriving at changes conceptualized?  (Alternative projectionsbased on varying premises are an option.)What public policy and professional influences were consideredsignificant in arriving at the forecasts on changes?
- What interrelatedness between and/or reorganization of typeof libraries and information services will have developed by 2001and to what degree? What public and professional policies should be advocatedover the next five years to achieve library and information servicechanges that will be most beneficial to economic, social, andeducational improvement?What national data will be needed for public policy and researchpurposes to measure and analyze changes in library and informationservices over and beyond the five-year period at national, state,and local levels?
- What data and/or information will be needed to measure thevalue of the library and information services that will be providedto individuals, families, businesses, social institutions, andgovernments so that the public and private investment needed toachieve positive changes in library and information services canbe justified?  
[From 8:00 - 9:00 a.m. a meeting of moderators and recorders withforum staff was held for the purpose of reviewing progress, answeringquestions, and resolving issues.] [From 9:00 - 10:45 a.m., the third Focus Group sessions were held.]
Summary Reports on Focus Group Sessions
Tuesday, May 16, 1995
10:45 a.m. - 12:45 p.m.
**DAVID BOESEL:**  Good afternoon.  We will spend the firsthour hearing from each of the focus groups.  There are five focusgroups and each group Moderator and Recorder will have 12 minutesfor their presentation, which we must adhere to.  Following thosepresentations, we will have one hour for free-flowing discussionsfor the whole group.  
 The first group will be reporting on National Level Changes andRobert Willard is the Moderator.
National Level Changes
**ROBERT WILLARD:**  Thank you, David.  We had a very interestingand mixed group of people participating in our group.  Our conversation,as you can expect, went all over the place because when you arelooking at something at the national level all of a sudden youfind yourself talking about public libraries or academic libraries,so we probably engaged in some conversation that was analogousto what was going on in other groups.
 In response to the guidelines, we came up with about four pointsthat we will now share with the group.  We started out with apessimistic assessment of the current environment.  Obviously,we are all familiar with the budgetary pressures that are affectingthe library world.  And, as we talked about it more, althoughwe characterized it as "troublesome" and said it couldget even more "troublesome" depending on the outcomeof the next election, we came to the conclusion that there isan inherent degree of public support for library institutionsthat probably will overcome the knee-jerk budget-cutting pressurethat we are feeling now.  But, this will only happen as a resultof advocacy and hard work on the part of library advocates.  Ifwe really want to continue to receive the resources that theseinstitutions need, a key factor is the need to involve the publicin this debate.  I think it is one of these cases where when thingsare going well people say, "Fine.  We do not need to getinvolved."  But, as we begin to see, for example, the libraryclosed during evening hours and Sundays that will mobilize thepublic and bring pressure to bear that will be effective.
 The second area we focused on was *technology*.   We hada clear consensus that technology is going to continue to advance. As Jane Bortnick Griffith said yesterday, the costs are goingto continue to decrease.  But, equally important is that the perceptionof the information superhighway is now on the minds of policymakers.  It is the "sexy" issue, and being sensitiveto that and letting public policy makers, who are excited aboutthe advances that will come about via the information superhighway,know that the library communities serving as an integral facilitatorfor providing resources of the information highway to a broadconstituency of users will be very beneficial for our cause. 
 Jane Griffith also mentioned yesterday that, while the costsof the technology may be going down, and what it may deliver maybe improving, the costs of training and retooling is extremelyimportant.  We identified a need to develop training programsand to fund them; not simply for librarians, but for library workerswho will be called on more and more to serve as techno-guidesto the users of this technology as it gets introduced into theinstitutions.
 Under the rubric of technology we also had a fairly extensivediscussion on matters affecting cooperation between differenttypes of institutions and libraries.  And, understanding thatthis is going to be a crucial aspect of making sure that peoplehave access to the greatest number of resources by sharing resources,for example, between public libraries and school libraries, neverfailing to recognize the unique missions of those individual institutions,but still recognizing that cooperative activities could be developed.
 We felt there was a real strong need for articulating what the*federal role* is.  We did, of course, acknowledge that thishas been a continuing discussion for years and years and may beone never completely nailed down.  But, we realize that in orderto advance, we need to devote some energy to discussing and definingthese roles.  For example, and not surprisingly since a representativefrom the National Telecommunications and Information Administration(NTIA) was present who is responsible for their grants program,we discussed the role that the federal government plays in actingas a spur for innovation, as a catalyst for change.  We also pointedout the role in a democracy that access to government informationhas and how important it is for the federal government to takesteps to assure that.  We made reference to the continuing discussionabout the information "haves and have nots" and whatthe responsibility of the federal government is in dealing withthose equity issues.  
 We felt it important to develop the policy framework for enhancingthe growth of the information infrastructure with specific attentionto issues of copyright, seeking a balance between the rights ofthe authors and the needs of users in terms of fair use; and,also in terms of telecommunications regulations.  For example,developing a funding mechanism where rate payers may pay a littlebit more in order for telecommunication providers to provide universalaccess (trying to define what are the fundamental needs the generalpublic should be expecting to receive from telecommunication providers). Within this context, focusing on a federal role, we did acknowledgethat there is a need for looking at other partnerships, and, repetitively,we kept coming back to the need for developing partnerships withthe commercial sector.  
 Finally, the last point was on the issue of *data requirements.*****Although there have been lots of studies regardinguser information, we wanted to emphasize that that was the keyelement:  What are users getting out of libraries and informationservices?  Why are they coming to the institutions?  What sortof data should be measured about the user's interaction with thelibrary institutions?  We felt it very important to focus on therole of research as a neutral fact-gathering process, not tryingto develop the data that we would want to have for advancing librarysupport or for advocacy.  But, rather, doing a fair gatheringof information and then being confident that that data would beuseful in developing the public support that we need for our institutions. 
 There was a lot of emphasis on cost benefit and economics.  Wediscussed trying to balance between valid statistical data andthe more anecdotal stuff where you say, "So and so went tothe library and found this information and this happened beneficially,"and tried to make sure that there is a linkage.  Different peoplerespond to different pressure points; some people will respondto having the statistical tables that say, "Eighteen percentdid this, twenty five percent did that, and so forth."  But,when you find out that someone was able to get a job because ofinformation that got faxed to them from the library at the lastminute, it is persuasive data.  So, we need to be sensitive toboth those types of data gathering processes.
 We concluded with a discussion on the need for understandingthat if you are going to be dealing with the users, there arewell-established marketing techniques for understanding user requirements. While there is not a lot of use, so far, of techniques such asfocus groups, it probably would be in the interest of researchersto use that technique to pull together small groups (both of usersand of non users), to try to elicit from them either what theywere getting from the institutions or why they were failing totake advantage of the institutions.
 That concludes our report. 
**DAVID BOESEL:**  Joseph Shubert will be speaking about****State and Library System Changes.
State and Library System Changes
**JOSEPH SHUBERT:**  We discussed federal policy relating toeducation of the people of the Nation, access to government information,telecommunications, intellectual property, security of the privacyof individuals, and the federal government's contribution to libraryand information services through its data collection, analysis,and publication.
 Our first concern is that the federal government's role in libraryservices, as a part of education and empowerment of people, isgenerally unappreciated or unknown.  In these two days, our discussionrepeatedly returned to the dollars that are transferred from thefederal government to the states resulting in improved libraryservices at the neighborhood, community, and school levels.  Thefederal library programs administered by the U.S. Department ofEducation are a part of the federal responsibility for people. They are a small, but significant, investment in education.
 The current political debate centers on the federal government'srole in many aspects of our society and its responsibility forpeople.  The argument is now advanced that the federal governmentshould shed a large share of its current responsibility.
 Central to our discussion in this Forum is the federal government'slong-standing *partnership with the states* in library andinformation services as a part of education and opportunity forall Americans.  The National Advisory Commission on Library andInformation Science articulated the case for the partnership in1968 when it proposed, as one of its five recommendations, thestrengthening of State Library Agencies.  That body was the predecessorof the NCLIS, which Congress created as a permanent, independentbody in 1970.
 The partnership, however, preceded the Commission's 1966-68 findings. The experience of the first years of the Library Services Act(LSA, 1956-64) and the Library Services and Construction Act (LSCA,1964-  ) influenced the recommendation.  The partnership has producedbenefits for millions of Americans of all ages.
 In 1995, we see the need for improving that partnership and fora clearer focus as outlined in our proposal for a Library Servicesand Technology Act (LSTA).  In the networked society, in whichtelecommunications and the global economy come together to changeevery community in the Nation, the partnership is central.  Thepartnership would be fundamentally changed if the federal partnerlargely or completely withdraws its financial support. Withdrawalraises, as well, big questions about equity and the federal government'sconcern for people.
 We discussed the*****training of library staffs* forlibrary and information service in a networked society.  Telecommunicationstechnology transforms.  Library services are different in thisnew environment.  We also discussed our concern for *federal,state and local government information*, in relation to equityof access and responsibility for dissemination of government information.
 These concerns suggest new needs for training and for libraryservices.  Skills which reference librarians usually have usedone-on-one with people who came into libraries (how to get information;how to evaluate information; and how to use information) now needto be shared with others, and they take on new dimensions.  TheState Library Agencies have an important role in the trainingaspect of library transformation.  In some states, the State Librarywill carry the principal responsibility; in others, library systemswill.
 We also discussed *data needs*.  We were struck yesterdayby comments on the prosperity of the elderly population and thenegative cost implications for coming generations.  We know librariesenable elderly people to remain more independent and to continuetheir contribution to society as well as to enjoy it.  We knowlibrary services are lifelines for millions of people, and weneed data on the social, personal, and cost-effectiveness impactof these services.
 There are many reports describing what libraries do for specialpopulations, and how they do it.  But we have a continuing needfor impact studies of various types of library services to peoplewith special needs, and to people who have, in some way, beenpushed out of the mainstream, or who never managed to get intothe mainstream.
 We also need studies of the value that libraries add to information,economics of information access, and the utility and cost-effectivenessof different methods of sharing resources.
 We face questions on the feasibility of joint school-public libraries. Today, we have "virtual re-location" of libraries -online catalogs and other new ways of sharing resources electronicallyenable school teachers and students to know exactly what is inthe public library at any moment.  And the homework counsellorat the public library can confirm with a student what specificinformation he or she can access electronically from home tonight,or can verify what reference sources are in the school librarymedia center for use the first thing in the morning.
 These developments should make it possible to improve servicesto students and teachers without reducing services to adults inthe way that joint libraries in some communities have done forpeople who may not be welcome in schools.  *We need studiesof the use of shared facilities.*  Decisions that affect theentire community require new sets of public policy informationon access and location of library resources and services.
 We also discussed our appreciation for NCES, NCLIS, and the Officeof Library Programs and for their leadership in seeing that *libraryuse questions* get into the national household survey and otherCensus surveys.  Given the telecommunications developments, itis particularly important to study access to government information: 
(1) ways in which the general public does or does not get access;(2) the ways government officials develop extending access toinformation; and (3) the extent to which librarians and librariesare influencing, leading, and helping local government organizeand disseminate information.
 Finally, we call attention to our continued interest in the NCES"Survey of State Library Agencies" and our concern fortracking the sharp changes that may take place in those agencies. 
Public Library Changes
**DAVID BOESEL:**  Thank you very much, Joe.  Next we willturn to****Public Library Changes**,** moderated by JoeyRodger.
**JOEY RODGER:**  Our most salient finding, or observation,from our time together was that effective public libraries inthe year 2001 will be characterized by six sets of values:
(1)  They will be customer-centered; this is not the same as customer-driven. 
(2)  They will be enterprise-driven, which means that all employeeswill understand the business they are in and where their pieceof the operation contributes to it.  It is the system-thinkingin the learning-organization kind of approach.  
(3)  They will be community-based, in the sense that they willacknowledge where the community power is, where the collaboratorsare, and where the community initiatives come from.  (We had afair amount of discussion about the importance of neighborhoodorganizations in urban areas as well as the importance of othergroups.)
(4)  They will be culturally-responsive to the diversity thatis within our communities, whether those are Native Americans,aging people, or shy, reclusive (or gregarious) people in ruralareas.  This is not just about urban library cultural diversity;this is about responding to the cultural patterns of the individualsin our communities.  
(5)  Effective public libraries will be outwardly connected. They will be connected to a variety of community partners, includingtheir funders and other community power groups.  In some cases,these will be community connections, in some cases they will bestatewide and national, and, in some cases, international connections,depending on the library's environment.  
(6)  They will provide value for the public dollars they receiveand they will be able to demonstrate that.  
These are the values that we believe in.  We believe that missionswill vary in terms of local priorities but will continue to beabout education, information, and cultural enrichment.  
 Our second priority, in terms of reporting, is that we wouldhope that there would be some broadening of data collection. These are the areas which need to be addressed:  electronic connectivity(both on and off site); library programs (whether these are programsfor which everybody gathers in a room or whether they are outreachprograms).  We need information about library staff.  One bigissue is the training of those staff members.   Another issuewas the question of who is working in our public libraries andhow much does it cost?  How many master's level librarians doyou need?  What are the staffing patterns?  Acknowledging thatthis is our biggest budget item, we need to do some data collectionon this.  We also need data collection about the varieties offunding streams - particularly as public funds get tighter andtighter - to show the shift to various kinds of private money. We also need to know the relation of governance patterns to financialhealth.  
 We had an interesting and brief discussion about the fact thatwhen local people can vote for library funding, which they canin some states based on state law funding, generally tends tobe better than when it is 'downstream' in an allocation budget. That is a state law issue; we need some research on this subject.
 And, finally, we would like to begin data collection on collaboration. If this is something we believe people should be doing, it wouldbe useful to start asking them about it.
 We had several other thoughts.  One thought is that there isa level of data collection support that we need for local work- for non-aggregatable data  - to enable us to better understandhow our own libraries are running.  There is a need for some ofthis to be done in aggregate formats.  There is a need for somekinds of social science research.  It was our comment that thisis a very, very important kind of research for us to support. In light of decision making, this is a very difficult kind ofresearch to get out of the federal structure.  Another thoughtthat came up, in terms of cut-back time at the federal level,is our wish not just for aggregated national statistics but forthe development of tools that could be used locally so that theremight be a new and fairly different federal role in support ofdata collection that would be to invent the tools with the definitionsthat can be used and applied locally.  For example, the governmentmight create survey questions for use in local user studies.  "If you want to know this, here are the questions you shouldask; they have been pre-tested and validated, and you can usethem locally."  To use the federal research 'brains,"not just as implementers of studies, but as designers of stuffthat we can use would be a great contribution to the improvementof library management.
 We believe that a key trend in funding public libraries willbe local, entrepreneurial efforts.  We are anticipating radicallyreduced federal funding and very uneven strength in State LibraryAgencies based, to some extent, on how dependent they are on federalfunds (which we want to make clear that we do not want, but whichwe see as fairly inevitable.)  This means there will be a greatdeal of dependence on local funding.  We are concerned that inthose discussions we may be pitted against our traditional colleaguesin the competition for money.  That may mean competing with ourcolleagues in education, or our library colleagues, as we alllose the 'stove-pipe funding' that has come to us as types oflibraries.  There also may be a very strong demand for non-resident fees and charges as people begin to say, "You are not payingfor this, so I am sorry you cannot use it."  We have sharedout of largess, and as money gets tighter and tighter, sharingwill be harder to do.
 Finally, as we look back again at the national picture, we believethat public libraries have a great deal to contribute to a developmentof a national network of digital libraries.  We are concernedthat that discussion seems to be happening at a research librarylevel.  We believe that public libraries not only have resourcesthat are important, but we have immense knowledge of what it isthat real people need.  We hope that richness can be brought intothose discussions.
School Library Media Center Changes
**DAVID BOESEL**.  I am struck by some common themes that areemerging here, and I think we may want to talk about some of themduring our later discussion.
 The fourth presenter will be Betty Marcoux on School LibraryMedia Center Changes.
**BETTY MARCOUX:**  Our group, as a whole, felt that schoollibraries as they are traditionally perceived are in real jeopardy,given the funding cuts and given  the focus on the advances inthe information technology needs area, as well as in educationalreform.  
 We felt, as a whole, there were some large equity concerns thatremain and will continue to grow as there is a potential transferof control and power of funding, as well as the disregard of theimportance of the conversation between important players in thefield of education.  As such, the school library group felt thatlibraries are essential to educational reform from the federallevel to the local level.  When we speak of libraries we speakof libraries now without walls; we speak of potentially sharedfacilities with professional facilitation.  We speak of digitizedas well as traditional formats.  
 We feel very strongly that as education is reformed and as teachingbecomes more of a profession, the library media specialist willneed to be more 'professionalized' as well.  We felt that theschool librarian is going to be asked, and is being asked, tobe and do the following:- Be an information integrity meister for their learners; Be an "in house" trainer of administrators, teachers,and students for the variety  of information access and utilizationpoints;Be knowledgeable of systems;
- To develop these systems based upon the needs of their learningcommunities; To be curriculum collaborators and reformers within the schoolsetting; andTo be vigilant in order to assure equity of access.

 The distinction that the school librarian brings to the tablefrom their other colleagues in different types of libraries isthat they bring a teaching background to this focus, as well. In order for this to occur - for these librarians to be at thepoint of assuming these roles - the following may need to occur:- Continuous retooling of education, both formal and informal; Ongoing professional development;Data to support the viability of the library profession asan integral part of the  learning community; and
Compensatory salaries that are commensurate with the levelof expectations of this  professional. There is a critical needfor national and political recognition of this body within thelearning community.  It seems to us that the school librarians,as a whole, are somewhat invisible, especially at the federallevel.  While we need to be more visible, more political, andmore integral to both the political arena as well as the worldof educational reform, we also need to be sure that we have strongconnections with other public and state agencies that involveeducation.  We need to partner ourselves with our professionalcolleagues.  We need to define what the federal role is goingto be in terms of school libraries and educational reform.

 As such, we felt that it was important to look at some of thedata needs, as well as the research needs with which the schoollibrary arena would be most concerned.  We looked at what kindsof data and research would be needed.  Our data list focuses onuser needs and user outcomes.  Some examples are:- How libraries support the curriculum.  (We want to stressthat we are not just  referring to school libraries, we are talkingabout all libraries.) How library holdings support student outcomes.How library personnel support outcomes.
- How student outcomes are correlated with student library use. How teacher use of the library and its information resourcesare correlated to  student performance.

 We need data to support what types of communication resourcesand technology can be used to support student outcomes.  We needto understand where the money comes from that is spent and howit is spent on total resources and personnel based upon studentoutcomes.
 We need to look at the rate of usage of new media by students. We need to track this against the quantity of media that is produced. We need to track, also, the rated usage of traditional sourcesvs. the amount that is currently published.  As such, we wouldlike to look at the growth of library holdings against the growthof the body of knowledge.  In other words, the number of publicationsand software packages that are available.  
 We would like to look at the professional use of the library. We would like to look at continuing education opportunities ofthe profession, and how that correlates to the use of libraryresources by students and teachers.
 We would ask for federal support to assist in designing and collectingthis data.  We would also ask that the federal level be concernedwith and responsible for the dissemination of this data.   Last,but certainly not least, it was very strongly felt that partnershipswith other types of libraries will increase.  There will be increasedcollaboration between schools, public, and academic sites, especially. I would like to note that there was a lot of discussion aboutthe fact that in many ways the school library parallels a speciallibrary in terms of its market.  We would like to see partnershipsin terms of collection development, technology liaisons, sharedpatron use, shared staffing, shared facilities, union catalogs,virtual collaboration, and programming.
 We felt that school libraries could relate to a number of theissues that have been raised by other types of libraries in thisroom.  We are all concerned about many of the same areas.
Academic Library Changes
**DAVID BOESEL:**  Neal Kaske will talk about Academic LibraryChanges.
**NEAL KASKE:**  I would like to highlight the high pointsof our discussion.  Funding of academic libraries is changing. U.S. dollar flux will continue.  Future reporting systems willreflect the true mix of funds spent for print and electronic resources. Property rights - there will be a technological solution to propertyrights management, but property rights will still continue tobe an issue.  
 Distance education will be greatly expanded and libraries willplay a major role in supporting it.  The organization of informationon the Internet will be better developed, but the Internet willstill remain a frontier under development.  
 There will be more cooperation between types of libraries.  Academiclibraries - are they just for students and faculty?  Academiclibraries will be one of the providers of electronic productsand services.  Academic libraries will continue to search forways to assess their value to their parent organizations (andwe just heard that also from school libraries).  
**MARY JO LYNCH:**  I think people may not understand whatyou meant when you said that the budgets will reflect the truemix of expenditures.  They sometimes do not now.  Academic libraries,sometimes, have to hide expenditures on technology because ifthe faculty thought that they were not really spending the moneyon books, they would have a bit of a problem.  We hope that issuewill go away and we will be able to really know where the moneyis going, for electronic resources as well as for print.
**DAVID BOESEL**:  Thank you for that breath-takingly briefpresentation.  
General Session
11:15 a.m. - 12:45 p.m.
**DAVID BOESEL**: I would like to make a couple of points andthen we will have a general discussion.  I heard the four followingcommon themes mentioned by two or more of the presenters:- The importance of customer orientation; The importance of libraries looking outward;Cooperation and partnerships;
- Linkages through technology and the use of distance education;and   Increasing access through technology.

 I am sure that you found other common threads.  At this point,let's have an open discussion and question session.
**MARILYN GELL MASON:**  One of the issues that we discussedthat got buried a little bit in the report had to do with thedigital library.  I would be curious to know the response of someof the others in the room.  It seems to me that if we can agreethat we are going to embark on creating a National Digital Librarythen one of the issues would be who should be organizing and administeringit?  In our report we addressed the issue that public librariesshould be involved, and not just academic libraries.  At a timewhen funding is being cut for traditional library programs, Iwonder about the possibility of funnelling some revenue throughthe Library of Congress that could go to participating librariesacross the country for the cooperative development of a DigitalLibrary.  Surely this is something that has to be undertaken inthat environment, and might, conceivably, be a way for us to keepthe federal government involved in the development of this national-levelservice.  I am not sure I have made myself clear.
**MARY JO LYNCH:**  I have seen many articles about the Libraryof Congress going in for that in a major way.  Does anyone haveany knowledge if that is really happening?  
**MARY LEVERING:**  Yes, the Library of Congress has takeninitiative in this area for the last five years through its AmericanMemory Project which was a series of pilot projects to test theuse of digitized historical primary-source materials in educationalsettings.  The Library digitized about 12 major historical collectionsand tested those with 44 different educational institutions includingschool libraries, using CD-ROM based technology.  In its NationalDigital Library Program, LC is now moving into full-scale digitizationof its older, unique, collections - images, photographs, manuscripts,sound recordings, and so forth.  Initially, LC is focusing onmaterials that are largely in the public domain, although someof them are still protected by copyright.  In all instances wherematerials are still under copyright, the Library is seeking permissionsand will respect the rights of rightsholders.  The Library isseeking funding through public/private partnerships in order todo this because there is no way that this enormously expensiveundertaking could be funded totally with federal dollars.  TheLibrary's Congressional oversight committees have endorsed thisapproach.
 In response to your suggestion about the Library of Congressserving as a conduit for grants to other agencies, I believe thatthe Library does not have the necessary authority or funding tomake grants.  There are other agencies in the federal department,such as the Department of Education, that do have granting authority,but the Library of Congress does not.  However, the Library hasreached out to collaborate with other organizations, includinglibraries, academic institutions, and others, to insure that thedevelopment of the national digital library is a collaborativeundertaking because there are many other institutions who arealso engaged in scanning and digitization processes.
 The Library of Congress definitely has a leadership role to playin developing digital libraries but not necessarily through servingas a grant agency for funding other projects.  It can serve asa leader in other ways.
**MARILYN GELL MASON:**  I am aware of many of the things theLibrary of Congress has done in this regard.  What I am suggestingis that that role ought to be extended to a coordinating effortand possibly to grant-making effort.  This expanded role mightrequire some Congressional legislation to empower the Libraryto do that.  Or, this type of thing might be considered contractualwith the libraries involved.  I do not think we have to get toostuck on definition of terms.  It just seems to me that it isa natural role for the Library of Congress to play.
**DAVID BOESEL:**  It makes a great deal of sense, as the centraldepository of information for the government and for the people,for that role to be extended electronically.
**FRANK WITHROW:**  I believe Bob Willard suggested that wemight want to add under universal services some educational rates. I would call your attention to the fact that the TelecommunicationsDeregulation and Competition Act of 1995 will probably be on thefloor of the Senate this week or next.  There is a Snowe-Rockefeller-Exxon-KerryAmendment which would provide educational rates for elementaryand secondary education, libraries, and some special rates forrural community hospitals.  
 The Congressional Budget Office did, I believe, declare thatproviding universal service was not a tax which was, believe me,a winning kind of decision because if it had been declared a tax,then the Senate would have to have 60 votes to bring it up.  Ifwe as an educational and library community do not get it in, wemay have to wait another 30, 40, or 60 years since the CommunicationAct of 1934 is only now this year, maybe, being revised.  It isessential, if you want educational rates, to let your voice beknown.  The Coalition now has 30 associations; it is headed byALA, the Chief State School Officers, the Software PublishersAssociation, ISTI, and the National School Board Association.
**MARY JO LYNCH:**  I would like to ask one question sincewe have representatives from LC here.  I remember from the articlesI have read that the LC was going to be working with other libraries.
**MARY LEVERING:**  Very much so.
**MARY JO LYNCH:**  But you are just saying that the LC willnot give them money.
**MARY LEVERING:**  Right.  I have not heard any discussionabout LC serving as a funding source for others.  In fact, LCis actively seeking funds for digitizing its own collections. But, in collaborating with other institutions, LC wants to helpensure that there is not duplication of digitization effort becausethis is such a massive undertaking that no one can afford unnecessaryduplication.  
**GARY STRONG:**  I certainly do not want to detract in anyway from the efforts that you are making at this Forum, but Ithink what we are suggesting, as well, is that there are othertypes of libraries beyond research libraries that can assist inthis process.  And, that the concentration be broadened beyondjust the digitization and creation of the Digital Library to lookalso at how people will use the Digital Library.  What kinds ofresources should be targeted to be put into digital format, inaddition to large and rare collections?  It is in that spiritthat I think we were making the suggestions.  If we are trulygoing to make the Digital Library a national resource, we haveto look at it in the context beyond the research community asbeing the only users of such a thing as a Digital Library.
**MARY LEVERING:**  Those are very good points, Gary, and Iam glad you brought them up.  I would like to add one footnote. The Library has been endeavoring to develop a few pilot projectsto test intellectual property management of copyrighted digitizedmaterials.  In that regard, perhaps we could work in collaboration,especially to identify what copyrighted materials users mightneed and want that the Library has in its collections and to whichdigital access would be an advantage if LC can secure permissionsfrom rightsholders and develop workable mechanisms to make thematerials available to users without harming the rightsholders.
 If you are interested in this, or if you have some ideas, I wouldwelcome your bringing them to my attention since I am a memberof the LC's National Digital Library Coordinating Committee, andI am responsible for trying to develop some kinds of projects. I would welcome your information and ideas.  My address and telephonenumber is in the Forum packet.
**BETTY TUROCK:**  I think that this discussion illustratesthe absolute necessity for greater collaboration within our ownarea, within librarianship.  Here in Washington, DC, we have afunding agency within the Department of Education, that is, LibraryPrograms (LP), with a base of support for research and for collectiondevelopment.  If we advocate strongly enough we might even ensurethat LP continues.  We have activities at  the Library of Congress,and the Washington Office of ALA, which deals with advocacy ona lobbying basis.  We have to plan together more.
 It seems to me that we do not talk to each other enough, evenlocally - and locally in DC is nationally.  Locally, in Washington,means that we are dealing with national issues.  The institutionsexist right here in Washington and they should be talking abouthow to involve more than research libraries in the digitizationof the Library, itself.  It seems to me that it is a broader issuethan the Library of Congress, although I know that Jim Billingtonis, in fact, seeking input from other areas.  Yet, I think thatthe net has to be cast still more broadly.  The agencies in Washingtonthat deal with this particular issue must talk with each otherand strategically plan together.  Include the Department of Education. Include the Library of Congress.  Include ALA's Washington Office,and any other organization involved in the Coalition for EducationFunding.
 NCLIS is a wonderful place for the kind of partnership and coalitionwe just talked about to be initiated.  
**NEAL KASKE:**  I would like to add a couple of pieces ofinformation.  I have been trying to understand what is going onwith the Digital Library activity.  I am sure we are all familiarwith the National Science Foundation, ARPA, and the NASA projectthat is pumping $24.5 million into six projects right now.  Thoseare three four-year projects which are to stretch the envelopeon how one gathers information; how one organizes it; how onebuilds search agents, and so forth.  Each one of those projectsdoes have a library component now, or is getting one.  I thinkone of the most exciting parts of this is the team at the Universityof Illinois at Champaign-Urbana, led by folks in the Library Schooland the Library, which is dynamite for us.  
 In reading their materials, and incidentally each one of theirproposals and progress reports is up on the Web, if you look forany one of them, you will find a pointer for the others.  Whatis interesting is they are looking at digital libraries, not onelibrary but a group of libraries.  That is a very important butsubtle difference.  We talk about  the virtual library which weare all going to be using, but it is made up of digital libraries. I have been hearing about all kinds of different small projectswhere they are taking special collections that are in need ofpreservation and turning them into machine-readable files.  Universitiesare doing this, some special libraries are doing this.  Theseare not yet libraries but collections.
 There is an area within the Department of Education - LibraryPrograms - which administers the Statewide Fiber Optics Projects,$10 million have been granted to four states at $2.5 million apiece for three year projects.  Louisiana is leading with thefirst one; Colorado just started in late 1994 and this year (1995)Iowa and West Virginia projects started.  The project in Louisianahas the university library catalog up, the local newspaper upand is building databases of local materials.  The Colorado projectis going out and building databases at the local level.  I thinkthere is going to be an opportunity for all of us to help builddatabases.  Each agency is looking for their own project.  I listento people at the Smithsonian talk about their data files.  Whenit comes down to funding, they say, "Well, if we cannot getbudgets for new projects, then we will go for fuel on our own." They will fight with LC to get money because they may be approachingsome of the same people.  Digital library development is not organizedacross government, but there is much going on.
**STEVEN FUNK:**  I am with the National Science Foundation(NSF), and I am involved with some of the digital library projects. NSF has more than the six that have been alluded to, but thosesix happen to be projects to develop the technology for digitallibraries because they are far from being a fully-functional reality.
 Some of us in education and human resources do not perceive theDigital Libraries as being the same as what is currently popularlyperceived as a library.  Rather, a confederation of digital collectionsthat are not just storage.  For example, we see teachers beingable to go to or access the virtual library to find the multi-mediaresources, developing learning modules from these resources, andredepositing them in the "library"where students willbe able to access and interact with those materials.  When usersdo not find what they need within the digital collection, theremay be pointers or outlets (to live humans) to enhance that learningprocess.  So, whether that Digital Library configuration becomesa reference space, a learning space, a recreational space, ora work space depends very much on why you are there and what youare using.  
 That leads us to three issues related to the goal of the sixDigital Library Technology Development Projects.  First, thereare some substantial unsolved technical issues for different users. Marrying technology development with the different users is somethingthat we are striving to do.  We now have six fairly robust researchprojects.  Each project has taken on a very technical area thatwill be important to the end-point.  For example, we still needto invent ways for being able to store visual data and recallit for different users in different ways other than word labels. We still are struggling with creating automated thesauri so thatdifferent users can access information using their natural language,terminology, or frame of reference rather than trying to learnthe librarians' indexing methodologies.  I think Illinois justused the preponderance of a super-computer's time for a coupleof weeks in trying to generate just such a thesaurus and it onlyaddressed electrical engineering.  
 The second point is that the user groups will be using an interactiveprocess, not just accessing a repository as we know it today. The "walls" of the "collection" will be quitepermanent.  The collection may call up multimedia materials, objects,interactive courses, or simulations stored in a confederationof caches; but may well contain pointers to experts or relateddiscussion groups or collaboration spaces.  The "collection"will be defined by purpose versus the "objects" or theirlocation.  
 The third point is the role of the libraries as preservers ofour culture.  The Library of Congress, the Smithsonian, the NationalGallery, among others that we have talked to, foresee that digitizationmay be the only way to store decaying artifacts or protect themfrom damage from disasters in order to be available for futurestudy.  This is a completely different set of users than typicallyare associated with research libraries, public libraries, andK through 12 media centers.  So, there are a lot of interestsinvolved.  
 While centralization might seem to be intuitively appealing,we almost see that as the antithesis of creative exploration,although we would like to see a wider variety of users involvedin those that are doing the research, just so researchers do notresearch too narrowly.  For example, most of those involved inour six main projects are scientists and engineers.  As they designan architecture they typically hold a research library in mind,they have certain users on which they base their models.  It isa little hard to change that and make them creatively uncomfortable. We will know within the next few months if we have been successful. 
**NEAL KASKE:**  It is also important to point out that thoseare not grants; they are cooperative agreements.  So changes inthe project are possible. 
**DAVID BOESEL:**  Are there any more comments on this veryinteresting and provocative set of issues.  Centralized data sources,decentralized data sources, confederation of linked digital sources. Is there a need for centralized data sources in an electronicenvironment?  Will the system get swamped by all of these othersources of information?  If there is a centralized source, shouldit be limited to specialty information, rare books, and so forth?
**MARILYN GELL MASON:**  I do not think that many people thinkit ought to be centralized.  In fact, I do not know of anyonewho thinks it ought to be centralized.  I believe that many peoplefeel it ought to be coordinated so that duplication is avoided. One of the problems in some of these local-conversion projectsis that there is no standard that will insure that these willbe interactive.  And, there is no coordination to insure thatdifferent institutions are not converting the same documents. This is a role that needs to be played by someone.  It is notcentralization in the hierarchical sense.  I think that technologyhas made that kind of an old-fashioned way of approaching thoseproblems.
**JOHN LORENZ:**  I would like to ask Steven if standards havebeen developed on which digitization can profitably and with assurancetake place?
**STEVEN FUNK:**  It is not simply a matter of just agreeing,in some cases.  There are other areas, like full-motion video,where there are some evolving standards.  What we are findingis that in some cases the technology does not exist sufficientlyto even develop standards, so we are trying to invent the firstuse of some of these capabilities.  For example, something assimple as digitizing text, we have OCR capabilities for doingsome of that.  However, when you look more broadly, there is stillno universal OCR capability that allows you to digitize and storeOld English Script, illuminated manuscripts, many kinds of graphics,or the different kinds of "objects" that you might wantto put into a digital learning environment.  Some other areasinclude photographs, geodesic information, and script-kinds ofmaterials.  The technical capability for being able to digitizethose and access them is still in the development stage. We arepremature in some cases.  In many cases, this has not been doneeven once very effectively.  So, the issues about how to technicallyachieve interactivity must be solved.  There are a lot of technicalissues involved with interoperability.
**JOHN LORENZ:**  I have one follow-up question.  When standardsare eventually developed, will these be standards of the NISO(National Information Standards Organization)?  Will they be announcedas national standards?  What is your expectation on that?
**STEVEN FUNK:**  I wish I knew.  In most cases, we are nottackling the standards part because we are just trying to tackletechnical feasibility and, hopefully, be able to inform the discussionamong those who will be users and producers, which we think shouldbe driving the debate on standards.  So far, we are not seeingourselves in the standards definition business, as a whole.
**BETTY TUROCK:**  Just to bring the beginning and end of thisdiscussion together.  The idea of the strategic plan that I thinkboth Gary Strong and Marilyn Mason were alluding to also directsitself to Steven's comments about technology facilitating theuse of natural language.  Librarians have been confounded by themethods we use for cataloging and classification over the decades. We have been very interested and involved in developing 'naturallanguage' lead-in vocabularies or thresholds.  I think that Gary,Marilyn, and I would agree that we are most interested in 'lead-invocabularies' for persons who are not librarians, those who mightbe immigrants, or those who might be just the average person onthe street coming in to use the library.  We would not like tosee this focus lost as we talk about digital conversion.  
**MARY LEVERING:**  I would like to add to Steven's commentswhich are extremely important to this dialogue.  Although we areall searching for answers, some of the most helpful mechanismsto get answers are through pilot projects that test new ideasin an actual operational setting such as the six NSF-funded pilotprojects, and others.  Interoperability is a key.  Before we canmove to such standards, however, users and producers have to collaboratein real-life projects to see what the issues are and how to developproducts and processes that work across multiple platforms thatare usable by a variety of users.  One important such project,for example, is the Getty Art History Information Program's "MuseumEducational Site Licensing Project (MESL)," through whichseven museums (including the Library of Congress) and seven universitiesare collaborating over a two-year period to test the use of digitizedmuseum images in educational institutions.  There is an enormousamount of very practical information being exchanged as part ofthat project.  It is one of many such valuable pilot projects,and I think we need to continue to develop such projects in orderto learn from them as we all move forward into the digital librariesof the future.
**STEVEN FUNK:**  I would like to follow up on Mary's commentbecause it starts to address John Lorenz comment on interoperability. The initial efforts at digitization (in about four of the sixprojects) used the Internet standards of HyperText Markup Language(HTML), for example, to achieve cross-platform performance.  Twoof the library projects deal with visual data.  One of them isnow questioning whether, in fact, that standard can stand andstill achieve the kinds and necessary ways to access.  If we hadcoordinated a great big collection and conversion effort and puteverything into HTML, we might have to reinvent the entire efforta year from now because it would not have the flexibility to dowhat we really need to do.
**MARY LEVERING:**  Thank you, Steven.  That is exactly thepoint that I was trying to make - the importance and value oftest projects that are specific and containable and help testthe various mechanisms to move us forward.  It is really crucial.
**BABETTE "BABS" PITT:**  I think it is really wonderfulhearing this conversation, but it seems to me that in all thistalk of the Digital Library, the academic libraries, and the NationalScience Foundation, there is something missing.  And that is: do you want children to grow up to use these advances?  Becauseunless this is brought down to the very basic level of K through12 out in the public where we have users who do not know how touse these resources, we are going to lose this part of our population. You will end up with one-fifth of the population using theseresources, and they will have to make a lot of money because theyare going to have to support the prisons, the welfare population,and all of the other untrained parts of the population. 
**MARY LEVERING:**  May I add one footnote to that?  Indeedsome of the pilot projects that the Library of Congress is developing,using funding generously provided by the Kellogg Foundation, willtest the use of digitized materials in K through 12.  You areabsolutely right.  Elementary and secondary educational uses areone of the important aspects of this whole new spectrum of digitallibraries.
**ROBERT WILLARD:**  I would like to comment on Babs Pitt'sconcern because I think I take exactly the opposite perspective. That is, the technology is such that it is not here yet, butit is coming rapidly and it will not require the type of trainingor funding that she is concerned about.  The price-performancecharacteristics that we are seeing with increased ability anddecreased costs, coupled with the imagination of programmers thatwill get to the point where what we now see is science fiction. For example, in the Star Trek program where someone just says,"Computer, tell me 'such and such'."  That will happen,and it will not be far away.  I do not think that is a big concern. 
 I would like to readdress the standards issue.  The questionof standards has always been one of freezing innovation.  To getto the point where you can say, "From now on, this is a standard,"means that the next idea has a much tougher row to hoe in termsof overcoming being so much better than the older standard.  Again,I come back to my base in technology.  I think that the abilityof computers to translate standards will become more important. There is not a popular word processing program on the marketnow that will now output and input from a host of other popularword processing standards.  While I think it would be great ifwe could say that everybody providing resources to the digitallibrary system should provide them according to this standard,I do not think is realistic.  I think what will happen is that,as part of building the infrastructure of the virtual librarycomposed of digital libraries, there will be a standard-translatingfunction within that structure.
**NEAL KASKE:**  I would like to point out that in the StatewideFiber Optics Projects, the system must be present in each countyof the state, and in most cases they will be in the public libraries. Each one of the projects must have access in schools, too.  Probablyone place that would be the most interesting is the Star SchoolsProgram in Iowa, and where it will get into almost all of theIowa schools.  But, I do not say this to diminish your pointedremarks that schools need to have access. 
**JOAN MICHIE:**  Obviously, as more information is digitizedwe would expect there to be more users.  Since this Forum is lookingat data, it seems that the usage of materials and resources mayneed to be documented in the future.  I understand that some mechanismsare in place for doing this, however, it may demand that peoplereach some common decisions regarding what information shouldbe collected and the mechanisms for that collection.  If thisis the wave of the future, this may be the start for collectingthat kind of data.
**DAVID BOESEL:**  I think there has been an excellent discussionof this topic, and we may want to come back to it.  
 At this point, Joseph Shubert would like to shift the discussionto Library Data Needs, related to staffing.
**JOSEPH SHUBERT:**  What may be needed and what may be feasiblein terms of data on staffing?  On Sunday, I read a news articleon salaries for various professions, and I was interested to seethat librarians' salaries ranked below elementary school teachers,and not very far away from architects.  There are a number ofsurprises in the comparisons, and I keep asking myself 'why'?
 This morning I heard the characteristics of the public library- customer-centered, enterprise driven, community-based, culturallyresponsive.  Then I heard from the school group the various rolesof the school library media specialist; what I did not hear wasthe need for political skills on the part of all librarians. My questions are:- What is needed and feasible in additional studies of librarystaffing across-the-board that would give us what we need to knowabout attitudes of staff, political skills, information skills,critical thinking skills, the recency of education, and how theymay affect our ability to use technology effectively, and improveour management and organization? What is happening in other fields?
- What additional information about librarians do we need tocollect?  Our data cannot tell us little more than how many peoplethere are, and how many have degrees.  
**JOEY RODGER:**  The most 'bang for the buck' I ever got outof statistics was a survey that the Urban Libraries Council (ULC)conducted of its member libraries which asked:- Which individuals on your staff do you expect will be herein the year 2000? How much are you spending to train them?

 The answer was most of them, and not very much.  We translatedthat into a proposal for the Kellogg Foundation which gave usslightly more than $750,000 to develop a video-based, staff-developmentpackage that will go free of charge to ULC members.  However,it was based on our saying, "Here is a need!  You cannotrun nuclear submarines with people whose idea of effectivenessis rowing in unison.  And, it's not because they are bad people;it's because nobody has ever told them that it has to be different." I think one of the hardest things to develop in library staffis political skills because nobody will talk about them openly;to talk about them openly is to, in effect, betray the trust thatyou have in your relationship with your elected officials at home. (That's what the directors I have worked for have taught me.) Occasionally, in small groups, they will talk about the needto be political, but to even come forth with that as an agendaat senior-management level is very difficult.  Most people whowork in libraries think that the political position is neutral- that means we do not take sides.  That appropriate non-partisanshipis confused with the need to be politically sophisticated to acquireresources and to contribute to the partnership that you have withthe funders in your community.  I think it is a very hard setof questions.
**GARY STRONG:**  I would like to expand on what I heard JoeShubert saying.  A need that I feel we have at the moment in alibrary of our size and complexity is not just to know how manylibrarians we have and what their characteristics are, but toknow what other kinds of professions we now represent, or haverepresented in our staff mix.  We have traditionally staffed librarieswith librarians who have knowledge of other professions:  accounting,automation, personnel management, business management, and soforth.  I think a trend may be, though, that we are now hiringpeople to work in our libraries who come from those professionswho may not have the library background because librarians aremore scarce than ever before.  
I think it would be helpful for us to know not just how many librariansand non-librarians we have, but the professional mix that it takesto run an effective library in this day and age.  I am particularlyinterested in public libraries.
**BETTY TUROCK:**  Gary, I agreewith you, but I think the data should be on all library workers. I would like to look at the people who staff libraries at alllevels and determine:- Their background; Their education; andThe recency of their education.

 There are a multitude of issues here, and they would make a wonderfullyuseful study.  
**NEAL KASKE:**  Just a side comment on one of the projectsunder the Institutes Program, HEA Title II-B.  Coming out of theCollege of DuPage it is a ten-session video conferencing programwhich has been reaching over 10,000 people in all 50 states andthree foreign countries.  One of the fascinating pieces of itis that the staff profiles, for which they have sample data, donot ring true to what we think are support staff people.  Youwould assume that they do not have college degrees, but many do. It is fascinating.  The detailed data will be coming out at thecompletion of the project, in approximately six months.
**ANN WEEKS:**  I think in the school-field increasingly weare getting more information about who is staffing the librarymedia programs through the SASS survey.  One of the things thatwe are finding is what we are saying people ought to be doingis not necessarily what they are doing.  And, the perceptionsof the administrators about what they need and what is actuallyhappening is unfortunate.  I think there are a lot of reasonsfor that, and a lot has to do with insufficient training and insufficientideas about what the role should be in the school.  I think thereare just not enough opportunities for people to get the retrainingand to have professional development to really change into thekinds of people that we believe are effectively meeting the userneeds.  I think we are getting some of the data but what the datais showing is that we are going to have to make some radical changesin how we prepare these people and how we re-educate them.
**RICHARD AKEROYD**:  I would like to hear more about JoeyRodger's sense of lack of political skills and/or lack of willingnessto talk about politics in libraries and library staffs.  
 My experience in the last ten years, in both Colorado and Connecticut,tells me that there is an enormous amount of very highly sophisticatedpolitical activity going on in libraries.  I do not hear anyonebacking-off of that discussion.  If it is the sense of the UrbanLibraries Council that we have a difficulty in librarians talkingabout political activities, what happens every year in Washington,DC, when we get 700 or 800 librarians and library supporters infor Library Day?  I know that COSLA is an organization that isincreasingly active in the political arena.  I would like to hearmore about Joey's concern in the area.
**JOEY RODGER:**  Thefirst disclaimer is that anything I say represents the Urban LibrariesCouncil.  I am staff to ULC, and I do not speak their positionsbecause by and large they have not spent a lot of time developingpositions on things like this.  It is my personal observationthat there is a great deal of political skill at the directorlevel.  There are still, however, and this also reflects my experiencewith the Public Library Association (PLA), many people in senior-levelpositions in public libraries who have a profound sense of discomfortabout being asked to be active in the political arena. 
 I have been present at a building dedication when a library directorannounced,
"I am not going to introduce the State Senators here becausethe public library is not a political institution."  Themayor then stood up for comment and stated, "The day youstop taking public money is the day you are no longer political." I think that viewpoint is more common than we would like to believe. That is piece one.
 Piece two:  I think it is very difficult because - and I speakin the presence of my ULC directors who may want to correct ormodify what I say - the communication down a library hierarchyabout the appropriate political work to get the money is very,very difficult to do.  For example, fairly recently in a Midwestcity the Mayor suddenly out of a sense of good will, as I understandit, gave the library one-half million dollars for automation. He then spoke to one of the library staff people and said, "Whatdo you think about all of the new automation money?"  Thestaff person replied, "Well, I have not seen anythingyet," not understanding that her role may be to complaininternally but never externally.
 I think it is those kinds of political skills that are very importantlocally.  I also think that it is something that I hear directorstalk about a lot.  But, when I used to try to develop programson political skill development, most directors would not talkpublicly about political strategies.  I think that is not aboutwanting to keep secrets, but about not wanting it to look likewe are manipulating the environment on which we depend.
 I also think that another piece of that, which is, perhaps, lessabout directors than it is about the position of the profession,is that what we know is that funders (both private and public)are attracted to successes.  The words we seem to be getting outa great deal, as the profession of librarianship, are that weare "threatened" and "endangered."  Thoseare the wrong words.  The right word is, "This is where governmentworks.  Continue to support it."  I do not hear us sayingthat.  I have learned a great deal about political effectivenessfrom the directors and others I have worked with.  They are good;that is why they are still in the business.  But, I think we havea professional shyness in terms of talking about it.  I am sorrythat was a very long answer.  
**BETTY MARCOUX:**  I would like to respond about the politicalsophistication.  Certainly from the school arena, I can tell youthat there is a confusion between the understanding that politicalsophistication may also mean library advocacy.  They tend to equatepolitics with taking-up sides, rather than the assumption of tryingto put forward a program that encompasses and embraces all sides.I would also say that in our particular area we find ourselvesvery reactive to what is either happening or has just happened,instead of being proactive and staying on top of it.  We are realanxious for the ALA Washington Office to assist us in the educationalarena.  We also find that in many states the legislative watchdogswatch library legislation without watching education legislation,which has direct impact on our ability to be viable informationsources.  Those are some of the constraints we have.  In fact,that is probably why - when we were discussing politics in ourparticular Focus Group - we mentioned that we felt we were quiteinvisible, we needed to be more visible. and would like to notonly wake up ourselves, but to wake up others to be advocatesfor libraries, in general.
 Finally, I would say that while you talk about the 700 plus librariansthat come to Washington - that is only 700!  I am looking at themultitudes of thousands out there at the local level; that iswhere we need to be advocating more so than at the federal levelbecause we need to be agents all the way through the system. That is our wake-up call.
**MARY ALICE HEDGE:**  I would like to reflect back to JoeyRodger's statement, "This is how government works best; let'sfund the library programs."  My concern in the 'pass-the-buckcampaign' is that we are not just taking the fifty-seven centsper capita as a given.  We should focus more on, "Give usan additional forty-three cents and this is what we can do,"instead of putting the fifty-seven cents on the line.
 I also heard Betty Marcoux say some interesting words that Ihave not heard in my twenty-eight years of working in this field. And, that is, that the school librarian information media persons(and that term always confounds me) see themselves now as 'vigilantinformation integrity-meisters.'  I would like an explanationof that phrase, please.  I like it - I'm not questioning it; Ijust want to be able to say it with conviction.  And, that theywant salary commensurate with expectations of the profession,instead of qualifications, education, and so forth, that we havealways heard.  I think that is an interesting concept, and itis different for me.  I would also like to know what is 'virtualcollaboration'. 
**BETTY MARCOUX:**  I am going to turn this answer over toa couple of people who made those comments.  I was the sharerof the good news, and I, too, was taken by that term.  I willanswer the one about the salary commensurate with the expectations.
 There is state level legislation that has occurred and is ongoingto upgrade the standards certification requirements for the schoollibrary media specialist.  The baseline, at this point in time,is a full teaching certification, plus.  The plus is moving moreand more into the arena of a full Master's degree.  So, we arerequired to be teachers first; and then go into library schooland become fully-certified librarians.  We could easily work withinany other arena of librarianship in terms of the Master's certification. 
 The acknowledgment, in terms of expectation is that the schoollibrary media specialist now becomes a trainer of trainers, inaddition to being a teacher of the students.  They are going tobe held responsible and accountable for the types of technologythat are best fitted for their user community.  They will be heldresponsible for being sure that it is integrated well within thecurriculum, and that the curriculum reflects the advances thatwe are all seeing in information access use and synthesis.  Theyare also going to be responsible for managing what will turn intothis virtual setting of information.  The job expectations arefar greater than what used to be perceived as the facilitatorof information; the reactive warehouse manager.  It has becomea much more proactive role, and that is the expected role, atthis time.
 I am going to defer to Steven Funk because it was his term: "The vigilant information integrity-meister."
**STEVEN FUNK:**  If we accept the concept that the body ofknowledge will double in volume about every six years at thispoint, and if we are going to teach inquiry skills at a very youngage across the curriculum (which is what we think will be necessaryfor life-long learners), then there will need to be people whowill be able to point inquirers to valid, reliable, trusted sourcesof information.  The librarian, or the media specialist, becomescritical in that case.  They are going to have to know that thereare entirely new fields that do not yet even exist, and they aregoing to have to be able to guide inquirers to that new knowledge. We think the teacher will become a 'learner enabler' and notthe source of expert subject content, because that will come fromthe information infrastructure.  Resources will be acquired withthe help of the librarian from resources physically present inthe "library" and from the "virtual" collectionof resources and learning environment.  We see the role of theteacher and the librarian in the learning process as somewhatdifferent in the future than it is now.  This may not be by theyear 2001, but certainly over the next ten years, if we are successful. We think that there will be a significant change in the rolesof those players.
**BABETTE "BABS" PITT:**  I want to continue discussionon this political, activism thread because, to me, that is themost neglected part of our role as librarians.  It seems to methat library schools are never mentioned.  Although I rememberstatistics showing  that people in graduate and library schoolswere always the brightest students in graduate programs, I thinkthere may be a naivete in that intellectual person.  I think thatevery introductory library school program should include somethingwith a little bit of political astuteness, activism, and responsibility. I think, again, in continuing education, it should be a threadtaken up by the states, by the local library organizations, andby ALA, that, along with the computer skills and other skills,we must clone political skills activism and responsibility.
**FRANK WITHROW:**  I would like to comment on both the commentsof Steve Funk and Babs Pitt.  With the new digital informationand the new information networks, we are now dealing with primaryknowledge.  When we were dealing with published material, we wentthrough an edit system.  We had editors and we had selection ofthe books and materials for the library.  On the networks, wedo need the 'integrity-meister'; we need to help the childrenlearn how to handle primary information and how to assess thevalue of that information.  We already see through talk radioan inability to handle anyone who wants to call in to presentthings as verbatim truth.  
 In terms of the political issue, I learned about 35 years ago(I actually worked as a teacher during the day and part-time forthe Teamsters in their Well-Patient Clinics in St. Louis whenJimmy Hoffa was still alive), when we had an election and I knewone of the new state legislators fairly well.  He said, "Frank,I want to tell you how well the Teamsters did with all the newlegislators.  They had us down for dinner serving nice KansasCity steaks and they said to us, 'We know you do not have a lotof staff, and we know that we can help you.  We do not want topressure or influence you, but when you need help just call uponus and we will do your research for you or help you write things." He said the teachers, on the other hand, had us out on a hotSunday afternoon with a box lunch and told us how bad all of theother people had been that we defeated, as if we were the problemof the last legislator.  I think many of us in the library communityand in the teaching community are so convinced that we are thepublic good, that when we go to our legislators, we always aretelling them what we want and what we think that their predecessorsdid wrong.  We have to learn a different message.  We could learnfrom the Teamsters.  
**GLEN HOLT:**  I would like to take us back to the originalquestion that was asked, "Why did we want to have the descriptivedata on our staff"?  My first point is that library workis changing faster than almost any kind of work in the UnitedStates.  Just start there.  The second point is that, in termsof historical and traditional library training, there is the enormousinsufficiency in what is available.  At the moment, there areabout 160,000 people working in libraries throughout the UnitedStates.  If you count only the people who teach in accreditedALA library schools, only about 300 of them are published regularly. That is the size of the professional training cadre, as opposedto the size and the demand in the marketplace.  
 We need these kinds of staff training:  The first of those isin-service training.  We, increasingly, are moving paraprofessionalsinto professional occupations as we upgrade the work of our professionals.
 The second need is in libraries, which are mostly staffed bypeople who are not librarians.  And rural and small librariesare, in point of fact, the fastest growing kind of public libraryin the Nation.
 The third reality is that this profession is one of the leastpopulated by minorities of any profession in the country.  Youhave to go to pure science before you even get close to the smallpercentage of minority persons who are library professionals. The library schools are turning out less than 5 percent minorities. We have an enormous problem in terms of minorities dealing withminorities in our communities.
 I suggest to you that there is much we do not know about staffingand staff work, and that we ought to make an effort to find outabout it because there are some really dramatic kinds of proscriptivechanges that we need to make in terms of dealing with the realitiesof training and staffing needs.  
**DAVID BOESEL:**  I want to expand this discussion of dataneeds, and I think your observation offers a good opportunityto do that.  You mentioned the need for information on characteristicsof staff and the importance of those characteristics in relatingto surrounding communities.  This brings in the questions of:  Who are the customers of libraries.  Who are the potential customersof libraries.  What are the potential markets.  What kind of informationdo we need along those lines?
 In our session we also discussed the need for information onoutcomes.  What do we know about what affects libraries?  Whatimpacts are they having?  How do libraries affect peoples' lives? Their ability to get jobs?  Their ability to have informationthat they would not have otherwise?  What are some of the costsand benefits of libraries?  Are they delivering a lot of impactfor the amount of money that they cost?  What can we say aboutthe value-added services of libraries?  What can we say aboutdifferent kinds of libraries in terms of initial investment andtheir contribution to information dissemination processes, learningprocesses, and so forth?
 I think it would be useful in moving into the final phase ofthis discussion to talk more about some of these issues and aboutthe data needs that they imply.
**MARY ALICE HEDGE:**  I would like to ask our Moderator aquestion because indeed we are talking about data needs, but researchneeds are also definitely on the table as he has just expressed. The Congress, in its wisdom, in the reauthorization of OERI,did establish that libraries would be included in the ResearchInstitute for Postsecondary Education, **Libraries**, and LifelongLearning (PELLL).  There are currently several Research Centers,none of which appear to be focused on libraries.  Librarians andlibrary supporters, in addition to Congressional supporters, feelstrongly that one of those centers must be dedicated to libraryresearch, information service issues, and related concerns.  Doyou see your Institute becoming involved in answering any of thesequestions that have come up today and that you, as Acting Director,have raised?  If so, do you have a time-frame or can you giveus any clues about when these library and information  researchissues will be addressed and how?"
**DAVID BOESEL:**  First of all, the five institutes put outproposed priorities for seven research centers.   Among thoseproposed research centers, there is not a center on libraries. A lot of this has to do with a lot of discussion that went oninternally over priorities and over the need to aggregate issuesin big bundles for research centers.  We are going from currently16 and 19 research centers (depending on how you count them) downto 7 research centers.  The subject matter of those seven researchcenters is highly focused, and that is part of the Congressionalintent. 
 In the Postsecondary Education, *Libraries,* and LifelongLearning Institute, we have a team that focuses on library researchissues (that is the team headed by Barbara Humes).  That teamheld a conference in Washington about a month ago to get inputon research issues that we, as an Institute, ought to address. We have a number of means of addressing those issues.  The firstis contract research; what we call 'directed research.'  We willhave to make some assumptions about Congressional funding andthe budget - you have to make those assumptions before you cansay anything about what you expect next year.  Based on the Administration'sbudget, there will be funds for directed research projects onthe subject of libraries.  We also have an in-house research staff. I think we have about six Ph.d's in the Institute, some of whomwill be devoting their efforts to library research topics.
 I found this conference very interesting and very stimulatingin a number of ways:  (1)  In terms of the research issues thathave been brought up; (2) In terms of the people that I have metand talked with; and (3) In terms of the potential for collaboration. One of the things that we want to do as an Institute in the areaof libraries and in our other subject matter areas is to reachout to develop some collaborative research efforts.  I was talkingwith Carrol Kindel earlier about this.  We have represented herethe Department of Education, the PELLL Institute, NCES, the Census,the Bureau of Labor Statistics.  I am thinking about - and wehave to think a good deal more about it - the possibility of expandingthis network to include non-governmental researchers.  There area lot of questions that are involved that will need careful consideration,but there is a lot of information, knowledge, and skill that couldbe focused on these issues in that way.
 One thing, in particular, occurred to me after listening to JoeyRodger's comments on economic modeling.  This is something thatwe can do.  Breaking out the resources for it, however, will notbe easy.  But, in my own thinking, that is the kind of issue thatI would like to try to start with.  I want to go to NCES and findout what kind of data are available.  We know about the HouseholdSurvey and the Library Survey, and there may be some other datasources.  I do not know to what extent these data sources canbe brought together to form variables for some kind of model,but that is the first thing that we want to explore.  By participatingin this conference, my thinking has been stimulated, focused,and directed, and I am very grateful for that opportunity.
**MARY ALICE HEDGE:**  Thank you.  You have done a wonderfuljob, and we appreciate what you are doing as the Acting Director. We heard the words, "Research Institute," in the verybeginning, but now they are just being called "Institutes." What is correct?
**DAVID BOESEL:**  They are all titled, "National Institutefor . . ."
**MARY ALICE HEDGE:**  But, "research" is not inthe title.  Correct?
**DAVID BOESEL:**  No.  But their mission is research and development.
**MARY ALICE HEDGE:**  One of the things you mentioned reflectsback on the White House Conference on Library and InformationServices' recommendations.  I would urge everyone here to go backand review those recommendations because much of what you aretalking about is contained in the recommendations.  I would liketo read one particular recommendation which comes under "*Services for Diverse Needs, Evaluating Program Effectiveness:* Establish a statistical model for determining impact needs. That the Department of Education establish a statistical modelusing existing data to evaluate the economic, social, educational,cultural, and linguistic impact of libraries and information serviceson their communities and that they assess community needs.  Thismodel should be developed to permit use at state and local levels." So, you are right on target!
**DAVID BOESEL:**  Very, very interesting.  The developingmodel, while very difficult, will and would be easier than doingassessment, which is very costly.  I would like to think in termsof how the Department of Education, in collaboration with otherfederal agencies and, perhaps, other groups, could work towardthe development of such a model.  I think that is an excellentpoint.  
 We have talked a good deal about some of our research and dataneeds.  What about things like user demographics, customers identifyingthe markets, different kinds of outcome variables that we maywant to look at.  Are there any other observations or comments?
**NEAL KASKE:**  When we talk about studying outcomes withinlibraries, it was pointed out by a couple of people in the academicgroup that really libraries support other organizations.  And,as such, if libraries are held accountable for the output of theclassroom, that is a little tricky because the assessment is noton the student or the library as one of several sources; significant,but probably not as significant as Mom and Dad, and some of theothers factors.  That, then, becomes a very difficult experimentalproblem because of the confounding of variables.  But, that isnot to take away from the fact that it needs to be done, and thatit needs to be worked on.
 We look at library data, and this was discussed in our group,from the type of agency that produces it and gives it out.  Itwas observed that users of libraries use multiple types of libraries,and it might be useful to take some sort of reading from the **user's** point of view.  It is kind of hard to put a diarynotebook on top of the Nielson Box, as someone put it, but thereare ways to log what some folks do across the network.  
**JOEY RODGER:**  We had a fairly substantial list of socialscience kinds-of-research that we would like to have done.  TheAnne Arundel County, a neighboring county library, has as a partof its long-range plan a provision that each and every child inAnne Arundel County will have a 'story-a-day'.  The library'srole is this, this, and this.  It is not to tell a story-a-dayto every child in Anne Arundel County at the knee of a librarian. The piece of research I want is the effect of having astory a day in the growth of language and thinking skills in children. What I am trying to get at is if there are some kinds of behaviorsthat we know have economic benefits, educational benefits, andso forth, let's do them.  We know the library has a role in producingthose behaviors.  To me that is a much better angle to go at thanto try to say the library caused this business to have this levelof grant funding.  We all know that there are far too many variables;there are too many in the schools; there are zillions in the publiclibrary environment.  I do not think that kind of data is credible.
**DAVID BOESEL:**  It is very difficult to measure developmentaloutcomes and, especially, to make those kinds of attributions. Focusing on users and the kind of benefits that they report;the amount of money that they save by using books from the publiclibrary rather than buying them; and so forth, are measurable.
**JOHN LORENZ:**  I would like to illustrate my political trainingby turning the topic over to my boss, Presidential appointee,Chairperson of the U.S. National Commission on Libraries and InformationScience, Jeanne Hurley Simon.
(Applause)
Closing Remarks
**JEANNE HURLEY SIMON:**  No one can say you are not political,John Lorenz.  
 Before we go any further, I think we owe David Boesel a wonderfulvote of thanks.  David, you have done a wonderful job, and weall appreciate it and have learned from it.  If I carry away anythingfrom this conference, it is that my granddaughter, who is one-yearold, is moving into Anne Arundel County next month, and I cantell her parents about one story-a-day.  I am sure she gets morethan one story a day.
 This has been a fascinating two days.  This Forum has been grand,and that is because many people have worked on it.  Paul Planchon;Bob Klassen; John Lorenz; Mary Alice Hedge; Jane Williams; CarrolKindel; Barbara Whiteleather, and Kim Miller - the people whoalways make things run so smoothly.  We owe everyone of you adebt of thanks.  (Applause)
 What do we do next year?  It will be the fourth annual Forum,and maybe we should call it the Emerson Elliott Forum?  This fellowis going, but he is the one who started it.  Perhaps we shouldhave Emerson Elliott Awards; I am thinking of all sorts of ideas. Every Forum has been special.  However, we are all on a cusp. We look forward to next year's Forum, and we want recommendationsfor topics.  Please think about them and send them on to JohnLorenz or Mary Alice.  We will be talking throughout the yearabout our ideas.  We will also be publishing a report on thisForum as soon as possible.
 Does anyone have any further comments to make?  If not, we aregoing to declare this Forum concluded with hearty thanks to theNational Center for Education Statistics, the Office of LibraryPrograms, and the U.S. National Commission on Libraries and InformationScience.
(Applause)
APPENDICES
Supplemental Focus Group Reports:Appendix 1 National Level  Appendix 2 State and Library SystemsAppendix 3 Public LibrariesAppendix 4 School Library Media CentersAppendix 5 Academic Libraries                                                                                       Appendix 6 Agenda, 1995 Library and Information Services Policy Forum                                                             
                                                                           Appendix 7 List of Participants                                         
Appendix 1
Focus Group Report
National Level
Changes by 2001 for Library and Information Services:
1. Better telecommunications.
2. Increased support for technology in libraries and for nationalpolicy directed at federal funding for information.
3. Increased flow of federal information to libraries electronically (for example, information on health and social services).
4. Libraries become information brokers.
5. Decisions made to maintain balance between intellectual propertyand fair use.
6. Public space defined on national information infrastructure.
7. Universal library service redefined in an electronic age.
8. Reduced support for government grants and services, in general.
9. For libraries, the continuing role of federal government asa catalyst is essential.
10. Mixed media/formats still important.
Premises for Expected Changes:
1. *Economic premises*
 --May have to look for other funding sources --Public/private sector partnerships are shown to be beneficial --Improved access to rapidly increasing amounts of information --Information provided by timely access rather than storage2. *Demographic/social premises*
 --Users are diverse - have/have nots; want/want nots; multiculturalusers increased --Intersecting needs of population -- for example, children andparent-related needs --Market-based decisions versus equity - need to understand marketpotential,    *and*****acknowledge need to serve others,as well
3. *Technical premises*
 --Technology is key - easier access --User interest in print continues --Library building as community center --Librarians provide information services, "navigator"function in electronic age
4. *Educational premises*
 --Future of libraries and education tied together5. *Political premises*
 --Depends on next election - drastic or gradual change --Conservative outcome in next election may mean more block grants increased competition, increased advocacy and mobilization for libraries --Need to engage public in debate
Public Policy and Professional Influences:
1, Functions of federal government in libraries:  dissemination,diffusion, Research and development, equity, and innovation
2. Library budget decisions more difficult -collections versustechnology, just in time vs. just in case, and so forth
3. More advocacy needed in order to compete for funding - publicpressure
Change in Library Relationships:
1. Resource sharing will increase gradually - depends somewhaton local
 conditions
2. Opportunities for market expansion increase; should be targetedBeneficialPublic and Professional Policies to be Advocated:
1. *Professional policies:*
 --Retooling people in the field to increase familiarity withtechnology --Develop courses for library workers as well as librarians --Review need for certification renewal
2. *Public policies:*
 --Establish guidelines for relationships and roles between publicand private sectors --Attention to copyright and proprietary rights --Role in technology established - universal service, publicspace issues --Maintaining public service function - not strictly market approach
National Data Needed:
1. *Demographics*
 --Get user/non user demographics --Relate to usage
2. *Usage*
 Current usage
 --Who are users; who would like to be users? --Types of use (for example, for educational purposes, independent  learning, life-long learning, school projects, job searchers,and so forth) --Time of usage:  noontime, after work, and so forth
3. *Interlibrary Cooperation*
 --Relations between and among libraries --Interactions, electronic or otherwise --Use of funding for cooperatives and networks --Types and reasons for interaction; for example, service coordinationbetween public and school
4. *Technology*
 --Presence of Internet and related issues --Cost model for Internet connection (Dr. Charles McClure's model)**--Types of media libraries use and/or needMeasuring Value ofLibrary and Information Services:**
1. *Outcomes*
 --Stop asking about institutions, start asking about people --Impacts of programs - evaluation data --Conduct funding to outcomes --Attitudes - how service affected user; open-ended questionswith future follow up
2. *Value Added*
 --Value to people, quality of service --Value added by type of library --Costs and savings
Data Strategies Discussed:
 --Focus groups of users and non-users --Need for federal government data to be representative, objective --Market strategy needs to be developed, but by library community, not federal government --Pull together existing sources of data to see what can be said; where there are gaps
Appendix 2
Focus Group Report
State and Library Systems
Changes by 2001 for Library and Information Services:- Federal funds to support State Library leadership will bea continuing need. Issue of equity in library service will grow in importance.Schools need to be proactive.  There will be a growing emergenceof community schools, and one-stop service centers; the role oflibraries will have to change to relate to these changes.
- There will be more shared library facilities. Federal role has shaped state library programs.  If federaldollars are cut, state roles will be redefined and there willbe much greater differences among state library programs.Majority of libraries of a medium size will connect with theInternet.  State funding will be essential to accomplish this.
- Information kiosks under the U.S. Postal Service initiativewill probably become widespread. Three types of library organizations/systems will continueinto the future:  Those that are parts of state structures; regionalnetworks, such as OCLC; and various other consortia.There was discussion of the following data-related topics: Johns Hopkins University economics/study on the values librariesadd to information; economic models; review of individual, household,and other non-library surveys.
Other discussion included:- How government information is provided.  What are the accesspoints?  How do government agencies promote access points?  Whatis their responsibility to do so?  There is a need for informationon users of government information, their experiences, and howinformation is used. There is a need for studies of access to shared library facilities.
Appendix 3
Focus Group Report
Public Libraries
Changes by 2001 for Library and Information Services:- The Public Library Focus Group noted the following economicand social trends:  Resurgence of small business development;an anti-tax feeling in the country; demand for accountabilityin expenditure of public funds; shrinking of the middle class,more poor people, more in upper income brackets; white collarunemployment; explosion of growth among Hispanic population (presentlyless successful in schools); and, higher income groups tend tohave and use technology.  - The following specific observations were made:  The ClevelandPublic Library provides dial up access from user's homes, butlibrary visits did not drop, they went up; those who thought thepublic library did not have anything for them, now feel it does,and they are using more of all services, not just electronic resources,once they get to the library.  - In Queens Borough Public Library, a small business man inthe import/export trade reported he is more competitive becausehe uses the library's electronic resources, and he is also discoveringnew markets.  - Nationally, 40 million people are now working at home, andmany rely on public libraries for information, home-schoolersturn to the public library, too - in person and electronically;there is a squeeze on local tax dollars and big competition forlocal/state dollars.    - Another issue is the cost of computers; costs are coming down,but computers are still too expensive for many people to haveone in their home.  Besides the computer, there are monthly connectcharges, and so forth, and this becomes an equity issue.  To manypeople, fees are preferable to taxes.  People feel more in controlwhen they are charged a fee.  - In Queens, there is an expectation that the free public librarywill continue to exist.  Fees are not expected or desired.  Businessesexpect public library service as a return on their taxes.  Manypeople understand that it does not make sense to "pay forwater by the sip".  - It may be that the public library is the only service forwhich many feel they are getting a return on for the tax dollar. Glen Holt reviewed the budgets of the 80 largest public librariesover several years and confirmed a pattern that a rising tidedoes not benefit all these public libraries and a receding tidedoes not hurt all of them.
- Marilyn Mason observed that in cities where public librariescan go directly to voters, they are more successful in increasingfunding than are public libraries that must go to local governmentofficials.  Most people feel that they get their money's worthout of public libraries.  A study was recommended of library law,state-by-state, in terms of the power of governmental units tovote on library support, with findings then related to levelsof library support.  - Other suggested studies related to better measures of libraryservices.  Circulation statistics may no longer be a key measuresince electronic access to information need not generate circulationtransactions.  Data on helping children with homework, teachingliteracy to adults, and services to latchkey children and seniorcitizens may be more significant measures.    - Social and demographic observations included:  Middle classare continuing to move out of cities; rural populations are changing;working women read for survival, not escape; many people havedeclining expectations but there are still examples of upwardmobility; some library users from poor families are now electedofficials and library supporters.  - Technology can be a major plus for public libraries.  Electronicservices can be readily measured and be responsive to user needs. Digitization of information materials may attract added librarysupport, particularly for libraries such as the Library of Congress.It will be important to involve public libraries in any nationaldigitization program.  Will public library service be expandableenough to encompass such varied services as electronic informationand story hours?  - The future of federal grants and state grant programs areimportant to public libraries.  A study of the support of variousfunding formulas on local public library support was recommended. Data about public library branches are needed.  The group wouldtrade annual national public library data for biennial data andspecial studies of urgent policy questions in off-years.  - What will characterize thriving public libraries in 2001? They will be customer-centered, will know what users want, andthe public will know what these libraries can provide.  They willbe partners with other organizations and will provide informationgateway technology.  People want education, especially in minoritycommunities but not necessarily in every community.  Public libraries,to date, have generally failed to translate community good willtoward them into better funding. On collaboration between and among libraries, a study describingthe best models for collaboration was recommended.  What willbe the trade-off between the physical location of the libraryand increasing access to the library from individual homes viadial-up technology?  Studies are needed to develop measures ofthe value of library service, especially on community and stateeconomic development.  There is a need for data on the purposesof individual and group library use, use of library facilitiesand electronic services, staff contact with users, services tohandicapped, new Americans, those seeking jobs.  It will be importantfor each public library to develop its own core values and services. Funding will continue to be difficult and local library entrepreneurialefforts will be crucial.
Appendix 4
Focus Group Report
School Library Media Centers
Changes by 2001 for Library and Information Services:
The concept of the school library media center as it ispresently understood is not one that will be incorporated intonew learning communities.  Unfortunately, many school librarieswill disappear before they can become recreated as informationcenters that include resources in formats such as digitized andinterconnected source centers.  Librarians, including school librarymedia specialists, must be prepared differently to match the newroles and requirements of them in the information universe.  Thisrole of the library media specialist must focus on teaching andworking as an Òinformation integrity meisterÓ. It consists of a less technical (cataloging, indexing, computertechnology maintenance) role with more focus on the teaching ofteachers, administrators, and students about intellectual as wellas physical access to information, its use and applications.
 In many schools there are not enough people with technologicalexpertise.  The roles to support the technological explosion willbe divided into the arena of technical support for the hardware/software,and the arena of intellectual support for access and utilizationas well as selection.  While the school library media specialistwill need expansive understanding of the workings of softwareand hardware, the primary role of this professional will be thatof intellectual focus, curriculum needs, and developmental requirementsof the clientele.
 K through 12 libraries must become information centers, providingaccess to all formats of materials with collections that are basedupon user needs and developmental levels.  The concept of thelearning community must be addressed, with confederations of informationcenters created based upon user needs and uses.  While digitallibraries are critical to the successful access of all types ofinformation, they will not replace print, nor the need to specializeholdings in distinct locations.  They will, however, offer opportunitiesto share interactively that information most needed by users regardlessof physical location.  The ability to store interactive learningmodels (tutorials, intelligent agents that help identify userneeds, and so forth) will allow for the use of this informationby many kinds of users and groups of users.  There will be greatdifferences in the concepts of work space versus study space,and while the classroom is likely to not disappear as it is traditionallyperceived, the walls of the school library and the access pointsto information will.  Digital libraries will encourage both virtualand actual collaboration, dialogue and writing.  Multimedia computersand information sources allow  communication to increase exponentially. The library becomes a Òvalue addedÓ source thatfacilitates this communication and learning. Funding for all librariesis critical and essential to their ability to undergird the learningcommunity.  Lack of funds will directly impact the speed of changefor school libraries.  Lack of professional development opportunitieswill directly impact the ability of school library media specialiststo move into the new roles essential to the future informationforums.  In all of this, the question of equity is a major issue. Obsolescence is a real problem with technology and information. Cost becomes relative to what is really valued.  A clearer understandingof costs and impact is needed throughout the country.  Schoolsthat are always innovative will continue to be innovative aremost likely to continue to be supported.  The others will fallfarther behind.  Greater diversity is also an issue, for differentcommunities will value different things.  Format will fall behindlearning style, and there will be a need to create a body of 'learners'rather than 'knowers' due to the overwhelming amounts of informationin everyoneÕs future.
 Some of the specific premises discussed included:- The socio-economic changes in our population will affect boththe needs and demands for information uses.  The cultural heritageof our students will also change.  Connecting students from differentgeopolitical areas offers the hope of creating fewer barriersto global understanding.  Distance learning can bring opportunitiesand equity, and assist in encouraging technological and informationliteracy.  Schools can be tremendous equalizers in this arena. To do this, they must be broadly accessible and politically active.   - Collaboration is essential for school libraries.  The movetoward partnerships has begun, but it must be accelerated andincreased.  There is critical need for the school library mediaspecialist to offer leadership in establishing and developingnew collaborative ventures.  The research recommends relationshipsbetween university communities and K through 12 schools.  Giventhe funding realities over the next several years, schools willneed to work closely with public libraries, and consider the responsibilityto serve more than just the schoolÕs students.  While curriculumis the schoolÕs primary focus, there is a need to be responsiveto community needs, especially in rural areas.  How this can bestoccur remains the question.  - Technology is an enabler, but it must have an infrastructure. All learners need equal access.  The leadership that the schoollibrary media specialist can bring to this infrastructure developmentis crucial.  The ability to define user needs and developmentalrequirements that then should be reflected in decisions abouttechnology and collection can only be addressed by those withprofessional expertise in both education and information use. There is a tremendous movement to standardize education. This movement is dynamic, yet never leaves the local level ofdecision making unless people abdicate responsibility.  Thereis a great need to develop this local sense of responsibility. New guidelines for school libraries are being developed thatfocus upon the student rather than the professional; however,the need to support this focus on the student will require a greaterunderstanding of the professionalism of the school library mediaspecialist.  Approaches to student assessment are changing; newmeasures must be developed that reflect the learning process ratherthan the product.  Although parents understand current assessments,they often do not understand that these assessments do not providea real reflection of studentsÕ progress.
- The lack of data collection and dissemination about schoollibraries is handicapping the ability to move forward.  Stakeholdersmust be clearly aware of this fact, and be involved in the decisionmaking process.  There are several local and state models of disseminationand data collection that could be done at the national level.   Data should be collected to address the following issues:
- How the library supports the curriculum The correlation of holdings to student outcomesRelationship of personnel to student outcomes
- Student outcomes correlated to library use Teacher use of the library as correlated to student performanceCommunity resources used by schools and student outcomes
- Expenditures related to student performance Relationship between use of technology and student performanceThe change in library usage when technology is available
- Correlation of holdings to growth of knowledge (books published) Relationship between professional development and the useof sourcesRelationship of test scores to library use
- Accessibility of information available only in digital formats How to capture data about information use that is electronicallyavailable
 Global measures for student success are also important.  Oldmodels of success may not measure what is necessary.  Older modelsinvolve measuring students, teachers, and buildings; newer modelsshould consider measuring learners, teachers, and libraries.
 Additionally, there is a need for more research, such as thefollowing:
- Documentation of current reductions in school library funding Currency of collectionsRelationship between reading scores and library use
- Relationship between use of technology and student achievement Costs of using databases as compared to traditional resourcesin the development of term papersRelationship between student achievement and resources
- Correlation of all scores to resources and services Increases/decreases in use and services due to funding/professionalcuts
 Long term changes need measuring, but longitudinal studies arenot realistic solutions for the present funding crisis. 
 Continuing education to bring the trained professional up tothe expectations of future role responsibilities is essential. Teachers and school library media specialists need renewal. Options such as distance education, virtual classrooms, and networkingneed to offered.  Opportunities to learn must be facilitated -even required for certification renewal - to assure the collaborativeinfrastructure important to these changes.
 Presently, there is no way to examine library services acrossa community.  Currently such services are looked at by type ofinstitution.  A more integrated approach to these services shouldbe the focus for the future.  The danger of this approach couldbe the possibility of a reduction of funding.   While most communitiessupport the library they use, if this level of collaboration occurs,funding issues will need addressing.  Of greatest importance willbe the continued focus upon equal opportunity of access for allusers.
  School libraries are most often loved because of the librarian;other libraries are loved because of their collections.  Thisdifference must be acknowledged and encouraged.  The functionof school libraries can be compared to that of many special libraries,and many are just as market driven.  The new context of the schoollibrary may be a center without the walls, but the human factorwill be at least as important, if not more so.  The availabilityof so many new formats and sources of information will make humanfacilitation even more important as students are taught how tonavigate in the world of information.  Unless the 'job' is doneright at this level, all libraries may potentially suffer thelack of support and clientele.
**Conclusions**
 As education is reformed and teaching becomes more of a profession,information intermediaries must be more professionalized and moredifferentiated.  The role of the school library media specialistmust change.  New opportunities for continuing education and morecourses for continuing certification are needed to professionalizeand update the role of school library media specialist.
 Libraries are essential to all forms of educational reform.
 Data collection about libraries should focus on or be correlatedwith student outcomes and educational change.  The informationalways should reflect the impact of the library program on thebroader educational program of the school.
 School libraries must provide both physical and virtual accessto resources.  This access must be professionally facilitated,directed, and nurtured.
 The role and responsibilities of the school library media specialistmust change to take on more professional development (in housetrainers) duties.  The concept of the information integritymeister defines the role of determining access to trusted,reliable sources of information for school library users.  Furtherroles that need to be encouraged and enhanced include curriculumcollaborators and trainers as well as assurers of equity.
 Partnerships among libraries - increased collaboration withinand without schools - are important.  Collection development,programming, access, on-line networking, space sharing (virtualand physical) are all concepts to embrace and encourage.  K through12 librarians seem to be virtually invisible.  They must becomepolitically active within the educational community and withinthe world of stakeholders.  They must become more integral toeducational change by being on the cutting edge of educationalprogress and future vision.
Appendix 5
Focus Group Report
Academic Libraries
Changes by 2001 for Library and Information Services:
Academic libraries will remain in constant change in the foreseeablefuture for a number reasons.  Some of the reasons for constantchange are listed below:- There is a great need to evaluate and measure the impact ofacademic library programs on users.  With fewer real dollars toutilize and more materials to obtain and/or access, the searchmust continue for ways to evaluate and to publicize the valueof libraries to patrons and parent organizations.  There is aneed to develop measures to justify expenditures on libraries. Understanding the value added by library and information servicesis very critical.  - Funding of academic libraries is affected by the flux in theU.S. dollar in addition to the generally lower budgets.  Manymaterial budgets are not keeping pace with the need to maintainand expand monograph and serial collections and at the same timeincrease funds for electronic resources.  The current and changingmix of funds spent for print and electronic resources is not knownand future reporting systems should reflect the real mix betweeninformation materials and access to information.  This is neededso the costs for information and information services is understoodby all.  - Electronic property rights protection is in need of a technologicalsolution though once a solution is found, property rights managementwill remain an issue for libraries.  - Distance education will expand greatly and the changing natureof the academy will affect the role of the library and librariansas information resource providers. It is one thing to providepatrons in a library with needed printed and online information. It is another environment with different constraints and advantagesto provide reference services and information to a patron or facultymember who are remote to the library.  - There is a clear understanding of the problems associatedwith the organization of information in a print world but theemerging online world is clearly a frontier under development. The increased cooperation between all types of libraries changesand expands the patron-mix for academic libraries from enrolledstudents and teaching/research faculty to include the generalpublic.  Online systems are increasingly open to all, which addsto the patron-mix. 
- Libraries have become providers of electronic products andservices through the use of online integrated library systems,electronic database searching and document delivery.  Some ofthe projects have been cooperative efforts with campus computingcenters.  Cooperative projects will continue with computer centersand university presses.  Appendix 6
**Library and Information Services Policy Forum***
***Changes in Library and Information Services:  1996-2001***
Monday, May 15, and Tuesday, May 16, 1995
Washington Vista Hotel
1400 M Street, NW
Washington, DC  20005
Tele. (202) 429-1700; Fax (202) 785-0786
**Monday, May 15****8:00 - 8:30**      Continental Breakfast -                                  **a.m.**             Meeting of Focus Group Moderators and Recorders with     ****                 Forum Staff                                              **8:30 - 9:00**      Registration and Coffee                                  **a.m.********9:00 - 9:30**      Introduction to Forum by Co-Chairs - General Session     **a.m.**             Hon. Emerson J. Elliott, Commissioner,                   ****                  National Center for Education Statistics                                 Hon. Jeanne Hurley Simon, Chairperson, U.S. National                      Commission on Libraries and Information Science          
**9:30 - 11:00**     General Session - Moderator:  David Boesel, Acting      **a.m.**             Director, National Institute on Postsecondary           ****                 Education, Libraries, and Lifelong Learning                                                                                                       **Forecasts for Next Five Years, 1996-2001**                                 Economic - Gail Makinen, Specialist, Economic Policy,                    Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress                      Social - P. Royal Shipp, Acting Director, Education                      and Public Welfare, Congressional Research Service,                      Library of Congress                                                      Technology - Jane Bortnick Griffith, Specialist,                         Science and Technology, Congressional Research                           Service,                                                                 Library of Congress                                     
**11:00 - 11:30**    Discussion                                              **a.m.**Monday, May 15 continued**11:45 - 1:15**     Luncheon - **Changes in Education:  1996-2001** - Ramsay    **p.m.**             Selden, Director, State Education Assessment Center,    ****                 Council of Chief State School Officers                  **1:30 - 3:30**      First Focus Group Sessions -                            **p.m.****National Level Changes******                  Robert Willard- Moderator                                                Carrol Kindel - Recorder                                                **State and Library System Changes**                                          Joseph Shubert - Moderator                                               Mary Treacy - Recorder                                                  **Public Library Changes******                                                                          Eleanor Jo Rodger - Moderator                                            Keith Curry Lance - Recorder                                            **School Library Media Center Changes**                                       Betty Marcoux - Moderator                                                Ann Weeks - Recorder                                                    **Academic Library Changes**                                                  Neal Kaske - Moderator                                                   Mary Jo Lynch - Recorder                               **3:30 - 3:45**      Break                                                   **p.m.****3:45 - 5:45**      Second Focus Group Sessions                             **p.m.**Same as above                                                           During this and the Third Session, Focus Groups may                      select a representative to sit in on the other Focus                     Groups                                                  **6:30 p.m.**        Dinner - optional                                       
**Tuesday, May 16****8:00 - 9:00**      Continental breakfast -                                 **a.m.**             Meeting of Moderators and Recorders with Forum staff    ****                 to review progress, answer questions, resolve issues,                    etc.                                                    **9:00 - 11:00**     Third Focus Group Sessions**a.m.********11:00 - 11:15**    Break                                                   **a.m.********11:15 - 12:45**    General Session - David Boesel, Moderator               **p.m.**             Focus Groups Reporting                                  ****                 Discussion and Conclusion                               
Appendix 7
**Library and Information Services Policy Forum****May 15-16, 1995****List of Participants**Shirley Gray Adamovich NCLIS Commissioner14 Thompson LaneDurham, N.H.  03824Internet:  sa_nclis@inet.ed.gov
Richard Akeroyd, Jr.State LibrarianConnecticut State Library231 Capitol AvenueHartford, CT  06106Internet:  rakeroyd@csunet.ctstateu.edu
John Carlo BertotSyracuse UniversitySchool of Information Studies4-206 Center for Science and Technology
Syracuse, NY  13244-2340Internet:  jcbertot@mailbox.syr.edu
Julia Blixrud, Program OfficerCouncil on Library Resources1400 16th Street, NWSuite 510Washington, DC  20036
David P. Boesel, Acting DirectorNational Institute for Postsecondary Education, Libraries, andLifelong Learning, OERI555 New Jersey Avenue, NWWashington, DC  20208-5571
Lynn BradleyDeputy Executive DirectorAmerican Library AssociationWashington Office110 Maryland Avenue, SWWashington, DC  20002
Laura Breeden, DirectorInfrastructure DivisionDepartment of Commerce, NTIAHerbert Clark Hoover Building14th and Constitution Ave., NWRM 6043Washington, DC  20230Internet:  lbreeden@ntia.doc.gov
Adrienne ChuteLibrary Statistics UnitNational Center for Education Statistics555 New Jersey Avenue, NWRoom 311AWashington, DC  20208-5652Internet:  adrienne_chute@ed.gov
Sandra Cooper, State LibrarianNorth Carolina State LibraryDepartment of Cultural Resources109 East Jones StreetRaleigh, N.C.  27601-2807Internet:  cooper@hal.dcr.state.nc.us
Evelyn H. Daniel, ProfessorSchool of Information and Library ScienceUniversity of North CarolinaChapel Hill, N.C.  27599Internet:  daniel@ils.unc.edu
Blane Dessy, Acting DirectorNational Library of Education555 New Jersey Avenue, NWWashington, DC  20208
Carol DiPrete, (NCLIS Commissioner)Dean for Academic ServicesRoger Williams UniversityOld Ferry RoadBristol, RI  02809Internet:  carold@acc.rwu.edu
Christina J. Dunn, Acting DirectorDiscretionary Programs DivisionLibrary Programs555 New Jersey Avenue, NWRoom 300Washington, DC  20208Internet:  cdunn@inet.ed.gov
Emerson Elliott, CommissionerNational Center for Education Statistics555 New Jersey Avenue, NWRoom 400Washington, DC  20208-5652Internet:  eelliott@inet.ed.gov
Steven L. FunkNational Science Foundation4201 Wilson BoulevardSuite 855Arlington, VA  22203
Gordon Green, ChiefGovernments DivisionU.S. Bureau of the Census407; WP2Washington, DC  20233
Jane Bortnick Griffith Assistant ChiefScience Policy Research DivisionCongressional Research ServiceLibrary of CongressWashington, DC  20540
Mary Alice HedgeAssociate Executive DirectorU.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science1110 Vermont Avenue, NWSuite 820Washington, DC  20005-3522Internet:  ma_nclis@inet.ed.gov
Glen E. Holt, Executive DirectorSaint Louis Public Library1301 Olive StreetSaint Louis, MO  63103
Barbara HumesNational Institute for Postsecondary Education, Libraries, andLifelong LearningOffice of Educational Research and Improvement555 New Jersey Avenue, NWWashington, DC  20208Internet:  bhumes@inet.ed.gov
Naomi KarpNational Institute on Early Childhood DevelopmentOffice of Educational Research and Improvement555 New Jersey Avenue, NWWashington, DC  20208Internet:  nkarp@inet.ed.gov
Neal KaskeLibrary ProgramsOffice of Educational Research and Improvement555 New Jersey Avenue, NWRoom 300Washington, DC  20208Internet:  nkaske@inet.ed.govCarrol Kindel, ChiefLibrary Statistics UnitNational Center for Education Statistics555 New Jersey Avenue, NWRoom 311
Washington, DC  20208-5652Internet:  ckindel@inet.ed.gov
Robert Klassen, Acting DirectorLibrary ProgramsOffice of Educational Research and Improvement555 New Jersey Avenue, NWRoom 300Washington, DC  20208Internet:  bklassen@inet.ed.gov
Roslyn KorbLibrary Statistics UnitNational Center for Education Statistics555 New Jersey Avenue, NWRoom 311BWashington, DC  20208-5652Internet:  rkorb@inet.ed.gov
Elaine KroeLibrary Statistics UnitNational Center for Education Statistics555 New Jersey Avenue, NWRoom 315AWashington, DC  20208-5652Internet:  pkroe@inet.ed.gov
Keith Curry Lance, DirectorLibrary Research ServiceColorado Department of Education201 E. Colfax Avenue, Room 309Denver, CO  80203-1799Internet:  klance@csn.org
Mary Levering, Assoc. Register for National Copyright ProgramsU.S. Copyright OfficeLibrary of CongressWashington, DC  20540-6001
John G. Lorenz, CoordinatorLibrary Statistics ProgramU.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science1110 Vermont Avenue, NWSuite 820Washington, DC  20005-3522Internet:  jl_nclis@inet.ed.gov
Mary Jo Lynch, DirectorOffice for Research and StatisticsAmerican Library Association50 East Huron StreetChicago, IL  60611-2795Internet:  mary.jo.lynch@ala.org
Gail MakinenEconomics Division, M.S. 7430Congressional Research ServiceLibrary of CongressWashington, DC  20540
Elizabeth L. MarcouxHead LibrarianRincon High School LibraryTucson, AZ  85711
Susan Martin, University LibrarianGeorgetown UniversityLauinger Library37th & O Street, NWWashington, DC  20057
Marilyn Gell Mason, DirectorCleveland Public Library325 Superior AvenueCleveland, OH   44114-1271
Joan MichieWestat1650 Research BoulevardRockville, MD  20850
Meb Norton, Director of LibrariesMetairie Park Country Day School300 Park RoadMetairie, LA  70005-4199
Paul Evan PetersExecutive DirectorCoalition for Networked Information21 Dupont Circle, NWWashington, DC  20036Internet:  paul@cni.org
Babette "Babs" PittRichard Montgomery High School250 Richard Montgomery DriveRockville, MD  20852
Paul PlanchonAssociate CommissionerEducation Survey DivisionNCES555 New Jersey Ave, NWWashington, DC  20208-5652Internet:  pplancho@inet.ed.gov
Dennis ReynoldsExecutive DirectorCAPCON1320 19th Street, NWSuite 400Washington, DC  20036Internet: dreynold@auvm.american.eduBobby Roberts(NCLIS Commissioner)DirectorCentral Arkansas Library System700 Louisiana StreetLittle Rock, AR  72201-4698Internet:  br_nclis@inet.ed.gov
Eleanor Jo Rodger, PresidentUrban Libraries Council1603 Orrington AvenueSuite 1080Evanston, IL  60201Internet:  ejr@gpl.glenview.lib.il.us
Ramsay Selden, DirectorState Education Assessment CenterCouncil of Chief State School OfficersOne Massachusetts Avenue, NWSuite 700Washington, DC  20001
P. Royal Shipp, Acting DirectorEducation and Public Welfare DivisionCongressional Research ServiceLibrary of Congress, LM-208Washington, DC  20540
Joseph Shubert, State Librarian and Assistant CommissionerNew York State LibraryEmpire State PlazaAlbany, N.Y.  12230Internet:  jshubert@transit.nyser.net
Jeanne Hurley Simon, ChairpersonU.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science1110 Vermont Avenue, NWSuite 820Washington, DC  20005-3522Internet:  js_nclis@inet.ed.gov
Gary Strong, DirectorQueens Borough Public Library89-11 Merrick BoulevardJamaica, NY  11432Internet:  gstrong@queens.lib.ny.us
J. Maurice Travillian(Chair, COSLA)Assistant State Superintendent for LibrariesMaryland State Department of Education 200 West Baltimore StreetBaltimore, MD  21201Internet:  mj54@umail.umd.edu
Mary TreacyAmerican Library AssociationWashington Office1301 Pennsylvania Avenue, NWWashington, DC  20004
Betty Turock (ALA President -elect) Chair and DirectorSchool of Communication, Information and Library StudiesRutgers UniversityNew Brunswick, NJ  08903
Ann Weeks, Executive DirectorAmerican Association of School Librarians/Young Adult LibraryServices AssociationAmerican Library Association50 E. Huron StreetChicago, IL  60611-2729
Robert Willard (NCLIS Commissioner)Vice President Government RelationsLawyers Cooperative Publishing9250 Clyo RoadSpring Valley, OH  45370Internet:  rw_nclis@inet.ed.gov
Jane Williams, Research AssociateU.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science1110 Vermont Avenue, NWSuite 820Washington, DC  20005-3522Internet:  jw_nclis@inet.ed.gov
Jeff WilliamsLibrary Statistics UnitNational Center for Education Statistics555 New Jersey Avenue, NWRoom 320AWashington, DC  20208-5652Internet:  jwilliam@inet.ed.gov Frank WithrowCouncil of Chief State School OfficersOne Massachusetts Avenue, NWSuite 700Washington, DC  20001